SA/12/1980 of PARAMU SUJATHA Vs KUNJURAMAN THULASEEDHARAN on 17 December 1985

1. Para.mu Sijatba, Komanthazhikathu Veedu,tKannimel Cherry, Quilon.f.2. Kunjuram&D Thulaseedbaran, ThuJ.asiman:liram,,,Prakkulathucherry, Thrikka.ruva Village.3.Kunjuramar Thankappan, -do--do-4. lara:yani Savithri of-do--do-5. Krishman Ke savan_ Mangalasseril,_KayavakkabuVeeda., P~--1:ku.1a-thu Cherry, Thril&..aruvaVillage.6. Krishnan Ma.dbavan, Thevarazhikathu Kizbakkethil,.-do-Cherry,-do-,7. Padma!£1.bb3.n Paa.mavathy, KomangazhikathVeedn, Ka.nnimel Cherry,Quilon Village.8. Velayudhan Paramu, -do--do-9. Paramu Vijayan of Koma.ntazhika.thu Veedu,Kanrd.aelCherry, Quilon Village.10.,Paramu Geetha,of-do--do-11 • Para.mu Sa.booof -do--do- f.i,-',,.

·

Petition pravin train the circumstances- stated in the•afhfid.av-it file.d there¼+iththEHi~h Court beP e1asea· to review... hue jud... .g ....m .eFnt i-n '-heg=bOoV; -cncAp- ·peal da-ted17•12•1985 and allo-.-nepe.titioner to placell t ....·- "'-fac·'-s anu.,... ci·rcumstances of the·casein the int~rest cf justice.

.This petition coning- on fororde=rs> upon perusing thepetition and the affidavit fil~ed i~n· su~._,.~..._..ortthereof, and uponhear in_~° the aruaent.s 0I,#'"?Mr•N.V.Thanbzn•,Advocate for thepetiti-one. - ,r+P-..;---.r orR 1 theCourt passed the p.t.o Pol{. Balasubramanyan, J.

--------------~-------~---~~

.R•.P•. No. 1¢35 0£1987,inS • A • No.1 2Qf1 980 . ·.---------------------------- Thispetition for- review is filed out of time.

C.M.F.No. 18709 of. 1987 ix filed by the petitioner.

for condoning the delay in filing thisReview Petitionhas been dismissed by we today for non-prosecution.

In view of this, thisReview Petition has only to be dismissed as barred·by limitatio•n.·.. The ReView Petition is dismissed.

17th June,1994.

-_sd\

Pk6las»aaragar, Toes

IN 1'PE HI GTT coun'fOF KEH.AL;\J\ 'f EHNAI{ljj'Ji\M

PH ESE NT:

Tha Hononrahlo Kumri Justice M, Fathima Bccvi Tn<:s<lny the17thDccomhor, i9B5/26th Aganhnyann,1907.

S.A.No.12 6 1980

A.S.Nos187191nd1970£1977ohDistrictCou@ uono.s.No.123 of1972of the Sub Court,Quilono 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.1A7,Appellant - firstplaintiff191 und 197 of 1977.

i>nramu Sujntlm, Komant•iUZhiknthu vcccln,Kannimcl Cherry,Qnilon Village.

By Adv.Sri.Thayyil K.Vusuacvun.

Rosponclonts - appellants - plai nttffs 2 to 4 and defendants.

4,Kunjuraman 'Thulasccdharan,Thulasimandirar,?rakkulnthncberry,Thrikknruva Village.?rakkulnthncberry,Thrikknruva Village.

2. injuraman Thankappan do, 00.

Nyn1Savithriododo

3,

4. Krishnan Kcsavan 1Jongu1.nsscril,Knyavnkknthu vccdu,Prnlckulnthn ch<n·ry,'l'hrikk~rnva Vi. llagc.Prnlckulnthn ch<n·ry,'l'hrikk~rnva Vi. llagc.

5,KrishnanMadhavan,Thovarzh'kathn Kizha!!ethil docherry do.cherry do.

6. Pudmnoabhan Blmsknran,M:arailnsscril Thoppil Vc:<:du,Xannimcl Cherry,¼:Uilon Village.Xannimcl Cherry,¼:Uilon Village.

7. PndmnnahHnn Padmnvat.hv Komnngnzhikuth Vcccln, Knnnimc1

Cherry,Quilon Vt 1 lagc.

8. VoluyucHmn l'uramu uo .. do.

9,arama Vijay n o:£ Komuotazll iku thu vc ccJmjl Ka nnimc 1

Charry,Qnilon Village.

10. Porumu Goctuo of do.do.

11. Vurmnu Saboo ofdo.do.

lly Aavs. M/s.P.C.Chacko, P.Krishnnmtborthy &M.Kri Ell nun Nuir.

This second appcql having been heard on 6.12.1985,- the court on 17.12.1985 delivered th to1lowing (>.-r~·-'-..../•"'£9 .i .iisv;>

9 .i .iisv;>tr1e,t?resoribed ierioi:.t of limitation.Theru.ere fact that ~~ rf:.,,i ~-- .~.- ,\;, r, --_. ,..,..,t i1,(J

defen.oa:nta 6 to 1011.ad oeeu implea.ded in th.e course uf-.-.::ie s~l.·~~ter the yosition as the relief pr~.Y•d for is to i\"fa~i,ale deedsexecuted in favour of defende.nta

1 to 3~ t~1em at the pax·t.r array.It is notf'>p&n to •defendants 6·to10 who cli:1.im subsidiary r.igb.ts to pat forward tne plea of liro.itotion.Th.e sale deeds nave oeen declaredtobe void and tn.e ple3.1,.1 t~era.io:t·e ur.rte!l.l:iole.la a.rcy ~11iew of the watter the ~ccree o.f t!le trial court n.as only t.o be upheld.

In the result tne dpeal is allowed.Tile decree oft.r.1.e lower a,t1 ...,ellate court is set. aside andt,n,a:t of' the trial court is x·estored.T'!'.le paz·ties are directed to suffer tne costs in the appeal.

17th December,1935.

-Sd/M.Fathima Beevi,

Judge.

\/Jr'

II true copy//

Assistant Registrar.

#r

•

is converted into a ten~c:, in cOUllJlon, as a re.;11.1lt of'nnich.the aenbers of the undivided family secaae tenantsincoill.filon as if a parti.1oion !i&d--tek.en,t1l&ce 8w.OUu t:1em.J..1oject to t:1.e eq,u.it..1',;:.1ic:'l. arises in favour of t:i.e co-"mort.ga.gors, tn.e suit io perfectlJl.lt;tintainacle wl.d~.1.edecree lo!lndouot.edli valid."

~aiu. in Sankaran ia.1£ v.Govinda 1982 K.L.2.348) it wastrpoi.uted out that on account o.f' .a division. in sti;;?.tus ill'O~:-:..:,h.tc9at ost:sate whie hes cone into force aux±xiiiai'ter tb.e institution of th.e suit t~tel::\lieuee is not entitledto claihl t~ie stiare di.le \&-- :_?V w.eiaoer in the 1n tarwe..d whoh.sd no alienable share o,the date the imaged sale deed wa:s executed.The provisions of ti:te;:..ct are therefore er;;-liedonly to workout the conflict bet.wecn the,:1arties and uaoaldi:rl,Sth1 relief hat can be granted in tnae Gd eircua.stances.Te trial 2oart was tacre;ore perfeevly justified in taus'tric~~ing t.r1e tt.rws.da.a having oeen disr·upted entitling ttieplaintiffs to recover tneir all.are iu the suit,.\prot'eJt\1eswit:1.out tenderi.r.ig the suit inc QU¥etent.Tne view neld y taelower aellate court is clearly erroneousand cn.sot hold goo@·

4. lae Learned counesl for the respondents contenled thatas a{;;ainst defeooant.s 6 to 10 wno had been ~_pleade~ in taecourse of the trial. the ..,uit. is oarred by liU1.itat.ion.T:iiscontention cannutoe8.CGl:::.Jted.Tae suit na...l<4 u.eIen filed viUlin ,,, •

upon t.n.e court to take uotioe of th.e events wh.ici'l aaveha1[,][1.][J][i;][.][m][e][d][ s][i][n][c][e][ t..]['1.][e][ i][ns][t][i][t][u][ti][on][ o][f][ t][h.][e][ s][u][i][t][ t.][o][ ra][ou][l][J][ 1][t.s]decree acc:oJ:·ding· to oircwnstancee as they stSlld at the time wll.en th.e decree is made.Tile cow.·t is therefore oound -toconsider the effect of t!l<.~-.nd in order tosnorten the litigation and to do cora.j:'>lete justic~ bet.w·~ent!le i)artie~ iaOl..lld the reliefs th.at can be granted.,1·Jhen th.aplain.tiffs had thus by o.peretion o~ law become oor-ownera ofthe roerty, the rigat to recover tae property is aot lostaltogether.By allowill!:, th.6lal \e recover the s~e whichthey would e entitled i9a partition has taken place,oei artias, so2la e graied in view of the cnaneed circa4staices,The alienees as no riat to claia s1are ofthe venooor and therefore has no aia to resist at4y sac a irection.Lo x·ecover his specific share in terns of tae ctr gagavan v» Aapag Pillai (1979 K.L.7.15) the effect af ct 300£ 1976 in pending lit.igation was considered.It was-heldt!lus:

11There is nottu.Jlb in the Act to aQig&&t. that itsoperat.ion is,_>rojeoted ooc1twards to take away rightswh.ich acct·ued in tne paat..;:;.4 shows \hat., as froui thedate on .tiich the f.ct. caae into force, a joint tenanc.Y

•

came into force on 1-12-1976 0111.Y provides tnat on e.nd afterthe coaenceaent of the Act,n.o riga't. to claim aey i.u"ierestin any_property of an ancestor during his oz her life-iuewhich is founded on the ere fact that the claimant was bornin the faw.il.Y of the ancea'tor sriall be recognised in an;ycaurt.Under Section 4 of the.Act all;n.eiUoers of a joi.utfeqily holai au; joint fail¥ royerty shall witn effectfrom t.n.e date o:f coUllllencem.eut of the.Act be deemed to hold--it as tenantsincC>ll.1.Won as if a partition atxbeenxtka ofsuch pro.l,)erty per ca.vita _has taken place among all tae eaiersof tnae faily and as if each one of the members is holdingh.is or h.er share searaely as full owner thereof.There iaa stetatory disruption oi the joint fail and thereaftereach member shall be entitled to hold the propert.Y a~ aco-owner,e 'et is not retrospective in oeration,Grdina\rily the decree in, e suit is granted ia the rig4ts of theperties us taey stand at the daje of its institution.futwilere it is ah.own that t!le original relief claL.ted llasbyrea;.;-;0.£1 of suoseq_aent change of circu..astancea oecOille inaL".i:'1.·opriat.eor tat it is necessisy to have the decision of the court ontne a.l te.x·ed circwast.a11.ces in orcier to sorten the litigation oz to do coulete justice oetween the parties, it is incuaoent •

of 1376 andhas therefore assed a paeliainasy @ecs-s_plaintiffs•declaring tae/gt±&iffta right for 4/5 shares atu allowie th.em ·to recover that sh.arewith consei.:j_uent.ial relief;.;.Th.elowerellate court has taken the vie that sucna a reliefcannot be grs.nted without an ruaenctaent of the11 plaiin:t,a.ruiNthat to pass a prelii:.1inary decree for partition in a suit o!th.is nature is a fatal er:toz·.T.lle aou:x•t, also said that theplclintiff caru..ot. bring a su'it on· behalf of t.he \ha:vazh.i which, has become extinct by t3&-- operation of law.'.llle court alsos-oid that to anend the suit a\t.his stage for that purposeis an awae of the process of t.he court because t.ne plai.i:.1:tiffehe@ aaple op.ortunities after the passing of the Joint PamiiyJ_yst~lll Abolition Act of 1~76.Ill t.his view the II suit washeld to be not Jis.inta inaBle.

:}. The apellant has urged t..nat tb.e lower a;:;;.,ellatecouit ia t.nus holdiiit; the sui\ as not, !46iinta1nable bas erredgrievously.It h.aa oeen founo l.hat the two sale deedsexec1.1ted in resiiect of the plaint ites are invalid and thevlai.ritiff's are entitled to recover possession of tie proper¥on a.voiding tne improper alienations,Recovery aas ueensought for on behalf of t:ie \!18.ra'Vad· f,s on tlle dat.e -of thesit, 1atwsaintainable,A}Oo1970which •

/

J

/

H.Fa.thima.Seevi,

• (Pauper)

fne suit «s

Ttie 1st plaintiff is the apellant.

institu t.edo:, plaintiffs 1 to 4 for recoves:y of te suit p.:coperties after sett.ir:ig aaiae certain alienations.:Plaintiffs 1 to 4, tn.e children of (lefendant.s 4 an'1 :, cn.alleuged theaagvalidit.,'i or i~xts.M andA2~not Sll.t1rortedoyconsideration end tha:t·avad -i:rr\arest.The trial court decreed

tn.e suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:len.e suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lee suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leuit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:let set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leet.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:let.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leing aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leng aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leide the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lede the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lee the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lehe sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lee aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leeede at.Mi allowing tl:leede at.Mi allowing tl:lede at.Mi allowing tl:lee at.Mi allowing tl:le at.Mi allowing tl:let.Mi allowing tl:le allowing tl:lelowing tl:leowing tl:leing tl:leng tl:le tl:lel:lee{Ny- a0or6vo3s- ·plaintiffa to recover possession4In the appeal filed oyassdefendants 1 to 3 the,decree 0f the trial court wad set tn.e suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:len.e suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lee suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leuit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:let set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leet.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:let.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leing aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leng aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leide the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lede the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lee the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lehe sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:lee aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le aeede at.Mi allowing tl:leeede at.Mi allowing tl:leede at.Mi allowing tl:lede at.Mi allowing tl:lee at.Mi allowing tl:le at.Mi allowing tl:let.Mi allowing tl:le allowing tl:lelowing tl:leowing tl:leing tl:leng tl:le tl:lel:lee aside and the suit was dismissed.The a.,..,i:'ellate decree ia challenged by the 1st plaintiff ill ~his second AJ~eal.

2. T!le co:n:t,.rovera.)' is now limited t,o schedule item I

ar..d 20 cents in itemNo.:,.Thlfiispgie in resect of item to.!lad ce~n comproaised dlll"illg '\be~ende?JCY of 1.ne suit.The firlliing of tne trial court ibat tile sale deeds are invalid.ti.as oeen confired oy tae lower aelleate court.The trial court in granting the decree baS noticed the effect of Act 30