Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35702
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BASANT BALAJI, J
SUMATHY – Appellant
Versus
MARIYAMMAL – Respondent
OP(C) 861/2022
S.VINOD BHAT, ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN, GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R, Sabu George, P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994), P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009), MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013), ADV. GITANJALI SADAN PILLAY
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave dereliction of duty, not reweighing evidence or substituting its judgment for that of lower courts.
Headnote:(A) Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate or reweigh evidence; it exercises supervisory jurisdiction to correct grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law. (Paras 15, 16)
(B) Sale Deeds - The genuineness of sale deeds is crucial in determining property rights; if valid, the petitioner is not entitled to a share. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a defendant in a partition suit, challenged an order allowing applications to ascertain the genuineness of sale deeds claimed by the 1st respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegal exercise of jurisdiction in allowing the applications to determine the validity of the sale deeds.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale deeds were valid and if the petitioner had a right to claim a share in the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error but to prevent miscarriage of justice in cases of serious dereliction of duty.
Result: O.P.
(C) dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims sale deeds are fraudulent (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 20 th day of November 2024)
The petitioner is the 5 th defendant in O.S.No. 480 of 2005 on the files of the Munsiff’s court, Chittur, which was filed for partition of plaint schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed on 7.3.2007, by which it was declared that plaint schedule property shall be divided into 6 equal shares, and the plaintiff/2 nd respondent herein shall be allotted with one share. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a final decree application, as F.D.I.A. No.2619 of 2007. The court below passed the final decree application, which was challenged in R.S.A.No.1343 of 2015 before this court, and this court set aside the final decree in so far as it relates to the allotment of shares made to the defendants and confirmed it so far as it relates to the plaintiff. It was made clear that the defendants were free to file separate applications to pass a separate preliminary decree in their favour. Though a Review Petition was filed in the R.S.A., the same was dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed an application for passing a supplementary preliminary decree as I.A.No.2684 of 2016. An objection was filed by the 1 st respondent herein to the said application. Thereafter, she filed 4 applications in I.A.No.2684 of 2016, viz., I.A.Nos .1569 of 2021, to direct the petitioner herein to obtain left thumb impression for sending it to the fingerprint expert, 1570 of 2021 to call for a report from the finger expert comparing with left thumb impression of the petitioner, 1571/2021 to receive list of witnesses and 1572/2021 to direct the Manager of State Bank of India, Chittur branch, Palakkad to produce original Registered sale deed No.374 of 2005 of Kozhinjampara, SRO mortgaged with the Bank. Objections were filed to all the I.As by the petitioner. By Ext.P15 common order dated 5.11.2021, the court below allowed all the I.As. It is challenging Ext.P15 order that this O.P.(C.) is filed.
3. As per the judgment of the 2 nd appeal, liberty was given to the defendants, including the petitioner, to file separate applications for passing of supplementary preliminary decrees. The petitioner filed an application to pass a supplementary preliminary decree allotting 1/6 share. The case of the 1 st respondent in the above mentioned I.As is that she had purchased the share of the petitioner as per registered Sale Deed No.374/2005 of S.R.O. Kozhinjampara and the share of the original 5 th respondent Vasanthamani as per registered Sale Deed No.2094/2007 of S.R.O. Kozhinjampara and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim 1/6 th share in the property and no supplementary preliminary decree can be passed. The certified copy of the registered Sale Deed Nos. 374/2005 and 376/2005 were marked in the final decree application. But during cross-examination, a suggestion was put that the documents produced by the 1st respondent herein allegedly executed by the petitioner herein are fraudulent documents, and therefore, the 1st respondent has filed the above-mentioned 4 applications to prove that the registered sale deeds are valid and properly executed by the petitioner.
4. When the petitioner raises a contention that the sale deeds produced by the 1 st respondent are fraudulent documents, the 1 st respondent filed applications to prove that the sale deeds are duly executed. If, as a matter of fact, the registered sale deeds are validly executed, then the petitioner is not entitled to any share in the property. It is to ascertain the genuineness and veracity of the registered sale deeds that the court below allowed the I. As directed, the petitioner was to appear before the court and furnish a specimen thumb impression for comparison purposes. The 1 st respondent has a case in which the registered sale deeds were produced before the State Bank of India and availed a loan. Therefore, the original being with the bank, the summons was sought to be issued to the B
