Partly allowed

Jalaja Kumari.G.S. v. Veena.J.K.

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/3174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a senior citizen to restrain registration of gift deeds transferred to her daughter, the High Court of Kerala held that the petitioner must pursue remedies before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the interim relief sought and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without granting any relief as prayed; the Tribunal is directed to finally dispose of the application within two months.

Jalaja Kumari.G.S. Vs Veena.J.K. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3174 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JALAJA KUMARI G.S., AGED 68 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNA PANICKER, MINI NILAYAM, KAMUKINCODE, ATHIYANNUR PANCHAYATH, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, KODANGAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695123

¶7

BY ADV P.K.MUHAMMED

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 VEENA J.K., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O RAJEEV KUMAR.B., MINI NILAYAM, KAMUKINCODE, ATHIYANNUR PANCHAYATH, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, KODANGAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123

¶10

2 RAJEEV KUMAR B., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN MINI NILAYAM, KAMUKINCODE, ATHIYANNUR PANCHAYAT, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, KODANGAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123

¶11

3 SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, BALARAMAPURAM, THEMPAMUTTAM, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501

¶12

4 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZEN AND PARENTS TRIBUNAL/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695005

¶13

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICHAL VILLAGE OFFICE, NEMOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020

¶16

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, ARALUMMODU, ARALUMMOOD.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695123

¶17

BY ADVS. SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER G.SUDHEER R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)(K/000642/2013) SMRITHI S.S.(K/1674/2018)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

: 3 :

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of March , 2024

¶23

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, has approached this Court seeking to compel the 3^rd respondent not to register any document by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in furtherance of Exts.P3 to P6 until final order is pronounced in Ext.P7 by the 4^th respondent.

¶24

The 1^st respondent is the daughter of the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent is son-in law. The petitioner has filed Ext.P7 application in the Senior Citizen Tribunal invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In Ext.P7, the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of Exts.P3 to P6 Gift Deeds, whereby the petitioner has conveyed certain properties to the 1^st respondent-daughter.

¶25

The petitioner apprehends that even before the Tribunal takes a final decision on Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is likely to

¶26

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

alienate the property, in which case Ext.P7 application will become infructuous. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court to compel the 3^rd respondent not to register any document by the 1^st and 2^nd respondent in furtherance of Exts.P3 to P6 until final orders are pronounced on Ext.P7.

¶29

Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The counsel for respondents 1 and 2 justified the Gift Deeds and submitted that on acceptance, the Gift Deeds have become final and concluded. The petitioner is residing along with the 1^st respondent-daughter. The petitioner has no legal grievance. The petitioner has made an application before the Tribunal seeking interim reliefs in the matter.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the Government Pleader representing respondents 3, 5 and 6.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

Admittedly, the petitioner has approached the

¶34

Tribunal filing Ext.P7 application invoking the provisions of the Act, 2007. Ext.P7 was filed as early in the month of October, 2023. The prayer of the petitioner is that till a decision is taken by the Tribunal on Ext.P7, the 1^st respondent may be barred from alienating the property gifted by the petitioner as per Exts.P3 to P6.

¶35

Primarily, when the petitioner has approached

¶36

the Tribunal raising a prayer to set aside Exts.P3 to P6 Gift Deeds, it is for the petitioner to pursue the Tribunal for the protection of rights. The petitioner has not filed an application before the Tribunal against alienation of property and has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for obtaining orders which are interlocutory in nature. In the facts of the case, it would be only appropriate for the petitioner pursue his remedy before the Tribunal.

¶37

In the facts of the case, the writ petition has to be

¶38

disposed of without granting any relief as prayed for in the

¶39

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

writ petition but at the same time permitting the petitioner to seek remedies from the Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th

¶43

respondent-Tribunal to finally dispose of Ext.P7 application filed by the petitioner within a period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3174/2024

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIF PETITIONERS' HUSBAND NAMELY	ICATE OF KRISHNA
	PANICKER.P.K. (KEY NO.D	0020291-
	2108044) DATED 23.1.2024 IS	SUED BY
	REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND ATHIYANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH	DEATHS,
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL	RECORDS
	RELATING TO THE SERIOUS AILM	ENTS OF
	PETITIONERS' SON NAMELY AK	HIL.J.K.
	(HOSPITAL NO.339059) ISSUED SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTIT	FROM THE UTE FOR
	MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TEC TRIVANDRUM	HNOLOGY,
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEME NO.1858/2009 DATED 25.6.2009 REGISTRAR OFFICE, BALAR	NT DEED OF SUB- AMAPURAM
	EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER	AND HER
	DECEASED HUSBAND NAMELY P.K.	KRISHNA
	PANICKER IN FAVOUR OF 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN	AND 2ND
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEME NO.2677/2014 DATED 29/09/2014 REGISTRAR OFFICE, BALAR	NT DEED OF SUB- AMAPURAM
	EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DECEASED HUSBAND NAMELY P.K. PANICKER IN FAVOUR OF 1ST RESP	AND HER KRISHNA ONDENT
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2	939/2014
	DATED 07/10/2014 OF SUB-R	EGISTRAR
	OFFICE, BALARAMAPURAM HAV	ING AN
	EXTENT OF 9 ARES 65 SQ. MTRS.	IN RE-
	SURVEY NO 205/19 AT PALLICHAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT	VILLAGE EXECUTED
	IN THE NAME OF 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEME NO.1311/2022 DATED 16/05/2022	NT DEED OF SUB-
	REGISTRAR OFFICE, BALAR	AMAPURAM
	HAVING A TOTAL AREA OF 8.41	ARES IN
	RE-SURVEY NO.205/25 SITUA	TED AT
	PALLICHAL VILLAGE EXECUTED NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT	IN THE

¶53

W.P.(C) No.3174/2024

¶54

: 8 :

¶55

Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY	OF	THE	PETITION SUBM	ITTED
	BY PETIT RESPONDENT	ION DA	ER TED 1	BEFORE THE 9.10.2023	4TH
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY	OF	THE R	ECEIPT NO.5237	/2023
	DATED 19. REVENUE DI	10. VIS	2023 IONAL	ISSUED FROM OFFICE	THE
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY	OF	THE R	EPRESENTATION	DATED
	13.11.2023		SUBM	ITTED BY	THE
	PETITIONER	TO	THE	3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COP	Y	OF	THE REPLY	(C.
	NO.274/202	3)	DATED	15.11.2023 I	SSUED
	TO THE RESPONDENT	PE	TITIO	NER BY THE	3RD
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY	OF	THE R	EPRESENTATION	DATED
	13.11.2023		ADDR	ESSED TO	5TH
	RESPONDENT	W	ITH	COPY TO THE	6TH
	RESPONDENT			WHICH	SHOWS
	ACKNOWLEDG	EME	NT BY	THE 5TH RESPO	NDENT
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY	OF	THE R	EPRESENTATION	DATED
	13.11.2023		ADDR	ESSED TO	6TH
	RESPONDENT	W	ITH	COPY TO THE	5TH
	RESPONDENT			WHICH	SHOWS
	ACKNOWLEDG	EME	NT BY	THE 6TH RESPO	NDENT

Jalaja Kumari.G.S. v. Veena.J.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalaja Kumari.G.S. v. Veena.J.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tyny Mathew Vs Meera. K. IAS

Sankesh K.M Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal - I

Reghuthaman Vs the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer

Unneenkutty Parayil, Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

K. Baiju, Vs the Chairman & Managing Director

Aneesh Vs the Regional Transport Authority