Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
HAFSA AGED 63 YEARS, D/O MATTARACKAL KOTTOTH MOHAMED @ BAPPUTTY, W/O ALIKUTTY, MANKARATHODI HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676509 – Appellant
Versus
SARAFUNNISA AGED 60 YEARS, D/O MATTARACKAL KOTTOTH MOHAMED @ BAPPUTY, W/O MEDUVIL NALAKATH MOHAMED HUSSAIN, THIRURANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306 – Respondent
TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 5 OF 2025 | Tr.P(C) NO.11 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ROSE MICHAEL, SRI.C.P.WILSON, SHRI.MICHAEL PAUL CHITTINAPPILLY, SMT.MEERAMOL JIJI, SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)
For the Respondents: ADV.T. KRISHNANUNNI, SR.
Clarification on partition requirement for disbursement of compensation in land acquisition disputes.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Dispute on title regarding acquired property pending before Land Acquisition Reference Court - Transfer of original suit directed to avoid conflicting findings - Clarification sought on partition requirement for disbursement of compensation. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Transfer of Suit - Court directed transfer to prevent conflicting decisions, though partition suit cannot be tried by Land Acquisition Reference Court. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The dispute involves title to property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, with an original suit for partition pending. The learned Single Judge directed the transfer of the suit to the Additional District Court to avoid conflicting findings.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge clarified that the right for partition is in issue, and the observation regarding disbursement of compensation does not imply a finding on the necessity of partition.
Issues: The main issue addressed is whether partition is required for disbursement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the observation regarding partition does not constitute a finding and that the transfer was necessary to avoid conflicting decisions.
Result: Appeal disposed of with clarification.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding partition and disbursement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observation to prevent conflicting decisions. (Para 5) |
| 3. clarification on the necessity of partition. (Para 6) |
| 4. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 7) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
A dispute on title with regard to the acquired property under the Land Acquisition Act is pending on a reference before the Land Acquisition Reference Court (Additional District Court), Manjeri. Between the same parties, there is a suit for partition pending before the Sub Court, Manjeri, wherein the acquired property is also one of the items. 2. As per the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge directed transfer of the original suit to the Additional District Court. The same is under challenge in this appeal.
3. We have heard Shri.P. Viswanathan, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants and Shri.T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
4. The only grievance of the appellants is that, in the impugned judgment it has been observed that, “without partitioning the property, the award amount could not be disbursed to the owners”. It would be construed that the observation suggests the requirement for partition and disbursement of the land acquisition compensation, submits the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. He seeks for appropriate clarification in the said regard.
5. To avoid conflicting findings, the suit pending before the Sub Court was ordered to be transferred to the Additional District Court, which is the Land Acquisition Reference Court. Since the Land Acquisition Reference Court cannot try a partition suit, the learned Single Judge has not ordered joint trial. But still transfer was ordered because, when the suit is tried before the same court it would prevent conflicting decisions.
6. As contended by Shri.P. Viswanathan, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the very right of the plaintiffs for partition itself is in issue, and hence it could not be said that without partitioning the property the award amount cannot be disbursed. All that the learned Single Judge has observed is that the issue involved is the same and the rights claimed depend on the determination of the partibility of the property. It shall not be taken as a finding otherwise.
7. With the above clarification, the appeal is disposed of.
Parties to appear before the Additional District Court, Manjeri, on 31.07.2025 Sd/-
