Back
V. Safarullah S/o. Koya Kunji – Appellant
Versus
Gracy Josephine Lambie W/o. Andrew Rodger Lambie – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case concerns the procedure to be followed when a court record goes missing, particularly when the record is in "custodia legis" (custody of the law), such as in the case of a Will (!) [15000491880001].
The Court found that the Record Clerk had no authority to return certain documents (Exts P5 to P7) under the applicable rules, and the failure to properly handle the missing record was not brought to the notice of the District Judge before endorsing Ext P8 [15000491880008].
The official procedures mandated that the District Judge should have conducted a thorough search for the missing record and, if unsuccessful, reported the matter promptly to the Court, including efforts made to reconstruct the record as a last resort (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the failure to follow these procedures, including the improper return of documents and the lack of a proper search, was against the directions and procedures prescribed in the official memorandum and applicable rules [15000491880008].
The Court held that the endorsement (Ext P8) and the return of Exts P5 to P7 were erroneous and unsustainable in law, and therefore, liable to be set aside [15000491880010].
The Court directed the District Court to accept Exts P5 to P7 and to take necessary steps in accordance with the official memorandum, including issuing a certified copy of the Will, and to pass appropriate orders on Ext P5 (!) .
The overall ruling was to ensure adherence to the proper procedures for handling missing records, especially in cases where the record is in judicial custody, to prevent miscarriage of justice and ensure proper legal process (!) (!) .
These points summarize the Court’s findings, the procedural lapses identified, and the directions issued to ensure proper handling of missing case records, consistent with the applicable rules and official memoranda.
JUDGMENT :
What is the procedure to be followed by a Court when a case record goes missing is the question that arises for consideration in this original petition.
2. The facts in a nutshell are, the petitioner is a co-owner of the property comprised in Resurvey No.558 in Block No.3/10 in Kannur-1 Village, having an extent of 6.88 Ares, covered by Ext P3 basic tax receipt and Ext P4 possession certificate. The property originally belonged to Andrew Rodger Lambie. The erstwhile owner had by an unregistered Will (Ext P1) dated 4.1.1961 bequeathed the property in favour of his wife -the respondent. The respondent, on the death of her husband, filed OP No.48/1964 (Ext P9) before the Court of the District Judge, Thalasserry, seeking letters of administration with Will annexed in respect of item No.2 in Ext P1. By Ext P2 judgment the original petition was allowed. The respondent sold the property to the petitioner's predecessors in interest. Ultimately, by document No.1685/1971, the property was assigned in favour of the petitioner's mother and other relatives. Now, the property has vested on the petitioner and his siblings, who are desirous of constructing a building in the property. They
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
