Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 10TH MAGHA 193 RP.No. 43 of 2013 () ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RSA.1003/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED ........ REVIEW PETITIONER(S):APPELLAN T ------------------------------------------------------ THANKAPPAN, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU SANKARAN, VADKKETHIL VEEDU, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN, AGED 6 YEARS S/O.KUNJU SANKARAN, PUTHENCHIRAYIL VEEDU SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA FROM VATTASSERIL VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690502.
2. JANAKI, D/O.KURUMPA, VATTASSERIL VADAKKETHIL VEEDU PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502.
3. PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O.JANAKI, VATTASSERIL VADAKKETHIL VEEDU PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss RP. NO.43/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES AI:- CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT DTD. 30./10.2012 IN RSA 1003/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. A2:- COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT REPORTED IN 201.(3) KHC 491/(DB). RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
===================== Review Petition No. 43 of 2013 in R.S.A. No. 1003 of 2012 ============================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013 ORDER
This petition is filed by the appellant in RSA No. 1003 of 2012 for review of judgment dated 30.10.2012.
2. First respondent filed the suit for partition of suit property claiming that himself and petitioner are co-owners of the said property. Petitioner claimed that the partition deed relied on by the first respondent is not valid and that he purchased jenm right over 6 cents as per Ext.B1, purchase certificate dated 26.04.1973.
3. This court found against that contention and held that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal requiring its admission. The second appeal was dismissed in limine.
4. In this petition for review, it is contended that first respondent has not so far challenged against B1, purchase certificate concerning the 6 cents over which petitioner claimed absolute right and possession. Learned counsel contends that first respondent having known about Ext.B1, certificate was required to challenge it in appropriate proceeding and so far that R.P. No.43 of 2013 -:
2. :- is not done, Ext.B1 should stand. These aspects were not considered by this court while deciding RSA No. 1003 of 2012.
5. First respondent is not a party to the proceeding which culminated in Ext.B1. Hence Ext.B1 is not binding on the first respondent. This court referred to Ext.B1 and its effect, in paragraph 8 of the judgment and held that Ext.B1 cannot be acted upon since petitioner is also a party to Ext.A1, partition deed where, notwithstanding whatever claim petitioner may have raised as per ExtB1, parties have entered into a division. In that view of the matter it is open to the first respondent to ignore Ext.B1 and seek partition. That is what this court has held while deciding the second appeal. In that view of the matter I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient ground to review the judgment in RSA No. 1003 of 2012. Review petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE smv //True copy// P.A. To Judge R.P. No.43 of 2013 -:
3. :-