Kerala High Court
K.S.Balakrishna Warriyar vs K.S.Balakrishna Warriyar on 30 March, 2015
Author: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2017/2ND JYAISHTA, 1939
RP.No. 752 of 2016 ()
----------------------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO.350/2015 IN A.S.NO.398/1994 DATED 30/03/2015)
----------------
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN IA & 7TH RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.S.BALAKRISHNA WARRIYAR,
'AARATHI', 20 PTP NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 038.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 11 IN IA ADDL.15TH
RESPONDENT APPELLANTS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6, AND 8 & 9 IN THE
APPEAL & PENDENTE LITE TRANSFEREES OF THE 1ST APPELLANT :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. JOSEPH, S/O. GEORGE,
PEEDIEKKAL, PALATHURUTH,
ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
KALOOR P.O., PIN-682 017.
2. K.S.RAMA WARRIER,
S/O. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR,
KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
C.C 39/1649, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN-16.
3. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR,
KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM, CC 39/1649, WARRIAM ROAD,
COCHIN -16. (DEAD)
4. SREE DEVI WARASYAR,
D/O. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR,
KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
'GEETHANJALI', THOTTAKKATTUKARA,
OLD DESOM ROAD, ALWAYE.
5. SATHEE DEVI,
D/O. AMMINI WARASYAR OF KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
CC 39/2322, OPP: AMBADY APARTMENT,
WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN -16.
2/-
-2-
R.P.NO.752/2016
6. LATHA,
D/O. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR OF KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
CC 39/1649, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN -16.
7. USHA,
D/O. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR OF KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
CC 39/1649, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN -16.
8. UMA,
D/O. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR OF KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
CC 39/1649, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN -16.
9. S.RAMA WARRIER,
ADVOCATE, S/O. SOOLAPANI WARRIER, KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
CC 39/1649, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN -16. (DEAD)
10. K.R.VIJAYAN,
S/O. PARVATHI ALIAS AMMINI WARASYAR, KARUKAPPILLI WARRIAM,
NOW CHELUR CHAMBES, 1ST FLOOR, RAVIPURAM ROAD,
COCHIN-16 (DEAD)
11. PARVATHI MADHAVI WARASYAR,
W/O. K.V.RAMANKUTTY WARRIER, SUDHA NIVAS,
SANSKRIT COLLEGE ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301.
(RESPONDENTS 3,9 & 10 HEREIN ARE DEAD. THE LRS OF DECEASED
RESPONDENTS 3 & 10 ARE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 & 11 HEREIN. 11TH
RESPONDENT IS THE SOLE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED 9TH
RESPONDENT. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED)
R1 BY ADVS.SRI.K.L.JOSEPH
SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE
BY ADV.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
BY ADV.SRI.S.SHYAM
BY ADV.SRI.SAJU.S.A
BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAMPI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------
R.P. No.752 of 2016
in
I.A.No.350 of 2015 in A.S. No.398 of 1994
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2017
O R D E R
This review petition is directed against the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.350 of 2015 in A.S.No.398 of 1994. The seventh respondent in the appeal is the review petitioner.
2. A.S. No.398 of 1994 was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation on 07.01.2014. One of the clauses in the mediation settlement was that the first appellant shall execute documents for correction of the schedule of R.P. No.752 of 2016 -2- properties in three sale deeds viz, Sale Deed Nos.4731/2008 of North Parur SRO, 8288/1/2005 and 1887/1/2005 of Puthencruz SRO executed by him pending disposal of the appeal as regards the survey number of the properties and its bounbdaries. On 01.08.2014, this Court vacated the interim order of injunction issued in the appeal, restraining alienation of the plaint schedule properties on condition that the parties shall not create any further transfer in respect of the properties in question, till the execution and registration of the correction deeds. The said order reads thus:
"The matter has been settled in mediation.
Mediation settlement agreement has been prepared and signed by the parties and the concerned learned counsel. Matter stands settled, the injunction order passed in I.A.3777/2010 and I.A.4483/2010 has been vacated. The order is communicated to the Sub Registry, North Paravur and also to the Taluk Officer, North Paravur, on condition that the parties will not create any further transfer in respect of the properties in question, till the execution and registration of the correction deed."
3. I.A. No.350 of 2015 was filed by the additional fifteenth respondent in the appeal seeking to clarify that the order dated 01.08.2014 will not affect the R.P. No.752 of 2016 -3- properties of the parties other than the properties covered by Sale Deed Nos.4731/2008 of North Parur SRO, 8288/1/2005 and 1887/1/2005 of Puthencruz SRO. The seventh respondent in the appeal claims right over the properties in Survey No.53/4E of Kottuvally village. According to him, Sale Deed No.4731 of 2008 of North Parur SRO was executed by the first appellant showing the property therein as coming under Survey No.53/4E instead of Survey No.53/4A. The seventh respondent in the appeal, in the circumstances, opposed the interlocutory application contending that the first appellant has not executed the correction deeds as agreed by him as per the terms of the mediation settlement and therefore, if the properties are alienated before the execution of the correction deeds, the same is likely to affect his interest prejudicially.
4. This Court found that correction deeds were contemplated as per the terms of the mediation settlement R.P. No.752 of 2016 -4- only in respect of properties covered by sale deeds viz., Sale Deed Nos. 4731/2008 of North Parur SRO, 8288/1/2005 and 1887/1/2005 of Puthencruz SRO and consequently, disposed of I.A.No.350/2015 clarifying that the order dated 01.08.2014 will not affect the properties of the parties other than the properties covered by Sale Deed Nos.4731 of 2008 of North Parur SRO, 8288/1/2005 and 1887/1/2005 of Puthencruz SRO. The clarification aforesaid has been made as evident from the order sought for review on the basis that the seventh respondent in the appeal is not affected by the clarification sought. The seventh respondent in the appeal/the review petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
6. To the pointed question put by the Court to the learned counsel for the review petitioner as to how the review petitioner is affected by the order sought to be R.P. No.752 of 2016 -5- reviewed, it is vaguely contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that transferees of properties under the first appellant have executed other documents before the settlement and since the property descriptions in the said documents are not corrected, cloud as to the title of the properties of the review petitioner in Survey No.53/4E continues even now.
7. As noted above, the order dated 01.08.2014 is one that has become final. The said order is only to the effect that the parties shall not create further documents in respect of the properties till the execution and registration of correction deeds. Since it was conceded that correction deeds were contemplated as per the terms of the settlement only in respect of three Sale Deeds referred to in paragraph 2 above, this Court has clarified as per the order sought to be reviewed that the said order will not affect properties other than the properties covered by the three Sale Deeds referred to above. In other words, the R.P. No.752 of 2016 -6- order of injunction dated 01.08.2014 has not been vacated in respect of the properties in Survey No.53/4E incorrectly included in Sale Deed No.4731 of 2008. The review petitioner cannot, therefore, have any grievance in respect of the order sought to be reviewed. The review petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the review petitioner from working out his remedies against the mistaken description of properties in the documents executed by the transferees of the first appellant.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE