Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
RAJENDRA BABU @ RAJENDRAN (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
MADHAVI AMMA (DIED) (LRS IMPLEADED) – Respondent
RSA 543 2013
Property - Partition - Sections 27 and 39 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court reaffirmed that partitions can occur through valid power of attorney, and that properties acquired through family funds remain partible ownership even if registered in one individual's name.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed partition and a declaration that certain documents were void, asserting his co-ownership in properties. The trial court ruled against him, finding that power of attorney was valid and the property was self-acquired by the first defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the plaint 'B' schedule property was indeed partible, recognizing the failure of the defendants to specifically deny the plaintiff's claims about the nature and acquisition of the property.
Issues: The primary issues were whether plaint 'B' schedule property was thavazhi property and if the powers of attorney granted adequate authority for the executed documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the source of funding for property acquisition, and the absence of specific denial by defendants, supported the conclusion that the property was part of joint family assets.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed; the plaint 'B' schedule property was declared partible with specific shares allotted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944 RSA NO. 543 OF 2013 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 571/1999 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM AS 98/2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, KOLLAM -----
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
1 RAJENDRA BABU @ RAJENDRAN (DIED)
S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAILAS (VILAYIL VEEDU), MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O.
(LHRS ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. A2 AND A3)
* ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 JAYASREE S.
AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. RAJENDRA BABU @ RAJENDRAN, KAILAS, KAVANAD, KOLLAM. 3 VARUN RAJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRA BABU @ RAJENDRAN, KAILAS, KAVANAD, KOLLAM.
*(LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 AS PER THE ORDER DTD. 29/10/2014 IN THE I.A. 2625/2014)
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
SRI.K.C.KIRAN SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.SAJU.S.A RSA NO. 543 OF 2013 -2-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O.NANI AMMA, RESIDING AT RENVIL APARTMENT, NAVARANGAM LANE,MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
(RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 30/10/13 IN MEMO BEARING AT 6875/13)
2 JAYACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SIVASYLAM, PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 518.
3 JAYASREE, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT RENVIL APARTMENT, NAVARANGAM LANE,MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
4 SUJA KUMARI, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, P.B.NO.2727, RIYADH 11461 KSA
5 PREETHI, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU POST, KOLLAM - 691 601.
6 B.K.NAIR AT P.O.B 6854, AGED 46, ABUDHABI, U.A.E
7 PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, (DIED LHRS IMPLEADED)
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, RESIDING AT CHAITHRAM, THIRUVALLOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 027.
RSA NO. 543 OF 2013 -3-
** ADDL. RESPONDENTS 8 & 9
8 SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 65, W/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, CHAITHRAM,THIRUVALLOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.
9 VAISAKH PRABHA, AGED 28, S/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, CHAITHRAM,THIRUVALLOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.
**(LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 AS PER ORDER DATED 29.06.2020 IN IA.2/2019).
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SMT.M.H.BINDU SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2022
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff in a suit for declaration, partition and injunction is the appellant. The suit was dismissed concurrently by the courts.
2. The reliefs claimed in the suit reads thus:-
“(a ) declaring that document Nos.2568 and 2569 of 1988, 208 of 1985, 2160 and 2161 of 1996 of Kollam Sub-Registry Office are void and that those documents are not binding on the Plaintiff and the plaint schedule properties, that the Power of Attorney dated 23.07.1988 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 7th defendant was to create a mortgage over his share of the properties and the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 are the co-owners of the plaint schedule properties.
(b) partitioning the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and allotting plaint 'D' schedule property with the building to the share of the Plaintiff or alternatively in case defendants 2 to 5 are found not bound by the agreement executed by the 1st defendant allotting 2/6th share with the building and road frontage to the Plaintiff and giving separate possession of his share through the process of this Court.
(c) restraining the defendants from trespassing upon Plaint 'D' schedule property or the share allotted to the plaintiff interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the said property, making obstructions to the plaintiff and his family for their residence in the property
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
