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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 80090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANNAMMA – Appellant
Versus
P.V.VARKEY – Respondent
OP(C) 2024/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 2024 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 IN IA 10/2021 IN OS

227/2018 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

1 ANNAMMA AGED 76 YEARS W/O.LATE POITHOTTATHIL ZACHARIA, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

2 JULIE ARUN AGED 41 YEARS D/O.LATE POITHOTTATHIL ZACHARIA, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

3 LOVELY ANEESH, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.LATE POITHOTTATHIL ZACHARIA, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

BY ADV K.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 P.V.VARKEY AGED 71 YEARS S/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

2 P.V.JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

3 P.V.POULOSE, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

4 P.V.SKARIA AGED 58 YEARS S/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

5 ELIAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS W/O.EDAYANAL RAJAN, CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, CHELAKKARA DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK - 680 586.

6 P.V.YOHANNAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

7 P.V.ELIAS AGED 49 YEARS S/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

8 ANNAMMA, AGED 89 YEARS, W/O.POITHOTTATHIL VARGHESE, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

9 ELIAMMA AGED 72 YEARS W/O.MAILETH GEORGE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PATTALA DESOM, IRINGOL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR TALUK, PIN 683

545.

10 MARY AGED 69 YEARS W/O.THEKKEATTATH VARGHESE, PAYIKANDAM DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK 680 653.

11 ANNAMMA AGED 67 YEARS W/O.POITHOTTATHIL SUNNY, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 680 653

12 ELIAKUTTY W/O.VADAKKANADI BABY, MAROTICHAL VILLAGE, DESOM, MAROTICHAL P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 014.

13 AVARACHAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O.VADAKKEMUNDOTH CHERIAN, PEECHI VILLAGE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 653.

14 ANNAMMA AGED 50 YEARS W/O.UNNUKALLIL ELIAS, MANANMANGALAM VILLAGE DESOM, MANDAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 014.

BY ADVS.

T.C.SURESH MENON B.DEEPAK THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

30.03.2022, THE COURT ON 08.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

================================

O.P(C). No.2024 of 2021 ================================

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2022

J U D G M E N T

This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No.227/2018 pending before the Principal Sub Court, Trichur. The petitioners assail the order in I.A.No.10/2021 dated

22.10.2021.

2. Heard both sides, in detail.

3. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the above Suit. The petitioners filed I.A.No.10/2021 claiming that the petitioners, being the legal-heirs of one Zachariah, got tenancy right in respect of 29 cent (15 cent and 14 cent), out of the total extent of the plaint schedule property. Thus a reference under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act was sought for, so as to adjudicate the said claim by the Land Tribunal. The contentions raised by the petitioners as extracted in the impugned order are as under:

“According to them the properties having an extent of 15 cents and

14 cents were taken on lease by their predecessor one Zachariah from his father Sri.P.P.Varkey on 01.01.1964. Thereafter, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property and had constructed a building in the 14 cents of property and he is entitled to get tenancy right over the same. The plaintiff has suppressed the said fact and filed this suit. This court has also framed issues regarding the same as issue Nos.1 and 2. Except the 29 cents of property leased out to the husband of the 1st defendant the rests of the properties were i

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 Back to top