SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 330

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Janaki – Appellant
Versus
V. R. S. Krishnan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer (SR.), M.P. Ramnath, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, P. Rajesh (Kottakkal), K.J. Sebastian, M. Varghese Varghese, Uma R. Kamath, S. Sandhya, Bepin Paul, Shalu Varghese, S. Deepak, Antony Tharian, Ajesh K. Antony, Sri. R. Ramadas, Janaki S. Menon (Party-In-Person), Ramnath M.P., K.S. Akshay Mohan, Vinod Bhat S., Anagha Lakshmy Raman, Greeshma Chandrika R., V. Namitha.
For the Respondents: Vinay Ramdas, G. Sreekumar (Chelur), P.R. Venkatesh, P.G. Jayashankar PGJ, Biju Abraham, Ramnath M.P., P. Rajesh (Kottakkal), K.J. Sebastian, M. Varghese Varghese, Uma R. Kamath, S. Sandhya, Bepin Paul, Shalu Varghese, S. Deepak, Antony Tharian, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, Vinod Bhat S., Sri. Anil Sivaraman, Sri. H. Badaruddin, Smt. P.G. Babitha, Sri. R. Manikantan, Smt. Nila C.V., Smt. Raji Vincent, Sri. R. Ramadas, Sri. R.D. Shenoy SR., Smt. B. Shameera, Anagha Lakshmy Raman, V. Namitha, Greeshma Chandrika R., K.T. Shyamkumar, M.P. Ramnath, Harish R. Menon, K.N. Abha, A.G. Prasanth, K.S. Sreeja, Oashin Lalan, Rohith R. Kartha, Aleena Sebastian, Sreevalsakumar P.K., K.S. Akshay Mohan, Government Pleader, Murthala Sayeed Thangal, Gangadas A.R.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These matters of different nature of litigation revolve around a challenge made to the sale in O.S.No.1/1964 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. The lead case in this batch, O.P.No.33731/2002 is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Late V. Madhava Raja owned several parcels of land and properties. He had income tax, wealth tax and agricultural income tax dues. On his demise, a suit for partition was initiated. A preliminary decree was passed. Based on the report of the Commissioner, all parties have agreed for the sale of Devi Vilasam Palace, Item No.9 of ‘C’ scheduled property in the preliminary decree; this was to clear income tax arrears. The property was sold in auction based on the orders of the Court on 08.04.1992 for Rs.31,15,000/-. Bidders were Dr. V.R.S. Krishnan, K. Radhakrishnan and T.R.K. Das. This was not a sale in execution. It can be treated as a sale invoking Rule 234 of Civil Rules of Practice. The sale was also confirmed. There were several intervening litigations. We are not referring to the entire litigation as the scope of present litigation is centered around the power of this Court invoking Article 227 of

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top