Cross second appeals over a 1973 partition deed: one suit sought its setting aside and partition, the other eviction as tenant. Courts below held the setting-aside suit time-barred under Article 60. The High Court confirmed concurrent findings, dismissed both appeals, and granted six months to vacate on conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945
RSA NO. 480 OF 2019
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2018 IN AS 15/2010 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2009 IN OS 8/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
RADHA RAMANAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KUNJU RAMAN, K.R. NIVAS, KADAKKAVUR.
BY ADVS. VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN V.RENJU P.ANIYAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
RENUKA AGED 68 YEARS D/O. KUNJURAMAN, CHERUKARA VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR 695 306.
BY ADV SRI.M.DINESH
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024 ALONG WITH RSA 499/2019 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 RSA NO. 499 OF 2019
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2018 IN AS NO.16/2010 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2009 IN OS 267/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
RADHA RAMANAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KUNJU RAMAN, K.R.NIVAS, KADAKKAVUR.
BY ADVS. VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 ASOKAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O.KUNJU RAMAN, KRISHNASRAM VEEDU, SARKARA, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 301
2 RENUKA AGED 68 YEARS D/O.KUNJURAMAN, CHERUKARA VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR-695306
3 REMANI AGED 55 YEARS D/O.KUNJURAMAN, CHERUKARA VEEDU,
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
3
KADAKKAVOOR-695306
4 SASIDHARAN AGED 71 YEARS S/O.NEELAKANTAN MUNDUTHOPPIL VEEDU, NEAR DEVARU NADA TEMPLE, KADAKKAVUR-695306
BY ADVS. SRI.NIKHEL K GOPINATH FOR R1, R3 SRI.M.DINESH FOR R2
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.01.2024 ALONG WITH RSA 480/2019 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
4
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2024
These regular second appeals have been filed under
Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
out of the decree and judgment dated 31.10.2009 in O.S.No.267/2007 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Varkala.
Radha Ramanan, the defendant in O.S.No.8/2008 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.267/2007, is the appellant herein.
5
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
appeal as 'Radha Ramanan' and 'Renuka' for convenience.
aside a partition deed of the year 1973 and sought the relief of partition. O.S.No.8/2008 is a suit filed by one Renuka, as plaintiff, who is the third defendant in O.S.No.267/2007 and she sought eviction of Radha Ramanan from the plaint schedule property in the above suit, which was obtained by Renuka as 'B' schedule to the partition deed of 1973. According to Renuka, Radha Ramanan executed rent deed and got possession of the building as a tenant and therefore he is bound to vacate the building on termination of the lease.
marked. DW1 to DW5 examined and Ext.B1 to B21 were marked. X1 to X8 were also marked. Finally, the trial court found that O.S.No.267/2007 is barred by limitation and
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
6
accordingly, the same was dismissed while granting decree in O.S.No.8/2008 as under:
“In the result, the O.S.267/07 and O.S.8/08 decreed in part as follows: (1) Plaintiff in OS 267/07 is entitled for 1/5 share on plaint E F schedule property and separate possession by metes and bounds
(2) File final decree application within 3 month from the date of preliminary decree.
(3) Plaintiff in OS 8/08 entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for. This suit i.e., OS 8/08 is not bar in filing fresh suit to obtain vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop room after the termination of the Ext.B1 period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost.”
learned Sub Judge also confirmed the said finding.
26.06.2019, my learned predecessor raised the following substantial questions of law:
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
7
“(i) Was the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation correct without finding which article of the Limitation Act would apply?
(ii) Is not article 59 of the Limitation Act applicable?
(iii) Did the courts below go wrong in nonsuiting the plaintiff on the ground that he had knowledge about Ext.A1 partition deed in view of Exts X1 to X8 which all came into existence in 2007 in which year the suit also came?
(iv) Were the courts below right in finding that the plaintiff had ratified Ext A1 partition deed because of him executing Ext B1 rent deed without considering the explanation offered by the plaintiff as to why he happened to execute it?
(v) Was it correct to leave it without considering the contention of the plaintiff that his father's property was also included in Ext A1 without the junction of the father?”
8
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
submitted that the relevant Article governing Limitation Act in O.S.No.267/2007 is Article 59 of the Limitation Act. But the courts below applied Article 60 of the Limitation Act and found that Radha Ramanan, who was aged 15 years at the time of execution of partition deed in 1973, marked as Ext.A1, would have filed the suit within three years of attaining his majority. According to the learned counsel, if Article 59 of the Limitation Act is applied, the date of knowledge is the starting point of limitation and therefore, the suit, O.S.No.267/2007, is within time.
9
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
it appears that Radha Ramanan was aged 15 years and he was represented by a guardian to effect the partition deed. If so, as rightly found by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the relevant Article governing limitation is Article 60 of the Limitation Act and if so, the suit filed by Radha Ramanan in the year 2007, after a long period of expiry of 3 years from the date of attaining his majority, is definitely barred by limitation. Therefore, the trial court and the appellate court rightly found so and the said finding does not require any interference by this Court. The substantial questions of law (i) and (ii) answered thus.
10
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
possession and enjoyment of the same, acting on the partition deed.
15 . However, considering the request of the learned counsel for Radha Ramanan, six months' time is granted to
11
RSA Nos.480 & 499 OF 2019
Radha Ramanan for vacating the plaint schedule property, provided the Radha Ramanan/appellant shall clear the entire arrears of rent amount within two weeks and file an affidavit before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today, undertaking to vacate the building on expiry of six months from today. If the arrears of rent failed to be deposited and the affidavit failed to be filed within two weeks, as directed, the grace period of six months granted by this Court shall not be available and the decree confirmed hereby to be put in execution without waiting for six months.
All interlocutory orders stand vacated and all interlocutory applications pending in these regular second appeals stand dismissed.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the court below concerned, within two weeks, for information and compliance.
Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
nkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit to set aside a 1973 partition deed executed through a guardian was barred by limitation under Article 60 rather than Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
Whether executing a subsequent rent deed and acting on the partition deed amounted to ratification, barring the challenge to the partition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Radha Ramanan
Renuka
Asokan
Remani
Sasidharan
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
