Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
P.N. Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
P.N. Divakaran – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal|RSA No.639 of 2010|O.S. No.1488 of 2004|A.S. No.24 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Abraham P.George
For the Respondents: Sri.G.Rajagopal, Smt.S.Leelalakshmi, Shri.Jayadeep Sajan, Shri.Abdel Bennet Jacob, Smt.Anagha V. Santhosh
The court reaffirmed the joint ownership rights under kudikidappu and held that evidence cannot contradict written terms of a valid deed.
Headnote:(A) Partition Act - The legal status of persons mentioned in a deed of assignment concerning kudikidappu rights was examined. Key issues addressed include the nature of co-ownership rights and the implications of evidence presented contradicting the validity of a sale deed in establishing ownership rights. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 92 - The prohibition against introducing evidence to vary terms of a document was affirmed, emphasizing adherence to written agreements. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
This appeal concerns partition rights over a property previously owned jointly by the appellant's father and the defendant, contending that the title was divested to the defendant under kudikidappu rights contrary to the plaintiff's claim of co-ownership. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that both late Narayanan and late Divakaran held joint rights under the kudikidappu, and the plaintiff was entitled only to half the share of his father, confirming the First Appellate Court's ruling. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The court addressed the legal status and joint ownership claims in relation to kudikidappu rights, along with the efficacy of evidence contradicting a sale deed. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that no exceptions to the prohibition against varying written terms applied, affirming the joint ownership status and rejecting the appellant's claims due to the absence of a purchase certificate. (Paras 9, 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition and ownership issues over property and kudikidappu rights. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on evidence and rights based on sale deeds. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on validity of evidence versus written terms. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final ruling on co-ownership and dismissal of appeal. (Para 12) |
EASWARAN S., J.
---------------------------------
RSA No.639 of 2010 -------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025 JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.
No.1488 of 2004 on the files of the IIIrd Additional Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam, as modified by the IInd Additional District Court, Ernakulam, in A.S. No.24 of 2007.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit, O.S. No.1488 of 2004, for the partition of 10 cents of the plaint schedule property in Survey No.161/7 of Kanayannur Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the property was derived in favour of late Narayanan, the father of the plaintiff and defendant, from one George, who is the landowner. On the death of Sri. Narayanan, the property devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant. Since the defendant refused separate possession of the plaint schedule property, the suit for partition was instituted. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, contending that the plaintiff has no independent right over the property and that he was a Kudikidapukaran in respect of the property, and that the landowner had divested his title exclusively in favour of the defendant and conferred his Kudikidappu right. On behalf of the plaintiff, Ext.A1 document was produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B9 were produced and DW1 was examined. The trial court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff has any co-ownership right over the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the defendant’s contention that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property is sustainable?
3. Whether the plaint schedule property is partible and if so, what should be the shares to be given to each parties?
4. If the prayer for prohibitory injunction is allowable?
5. Reliefs and costs.
3. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the entitlement of the defendant to hold the property under the Kudikidappu right and also obtaining the purchase certificate will enure to the benefit of the plaintiff as well, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to one-half share over the plaint schedule property and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the findings rendered by the trial court, the defendant preferred A.S. No.24 of 2007. Pending appeal, the defendant expired, and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 5. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, found that Ext.B1 is a sale deed in favour of the defendant as well as his father, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for. However, finding that the plaintiff is entitled to only half the share held by late Narayanan and not the entire property, the judgment and decree of the trial court was modified and a preliminary decree for partition was passed by dividing the plaint schedule landed property into four equal shares and that one such share to be allotted to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court modifying the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, the present appeal is filed.
4. Heard Sri. Abraham P. George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. G Rajagopal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. On 15.7.2025, this Court framed the following questions of law for consideration:
i. What will be the legal status of a person whose name also has been mentioned in a deed of assignment executed in recognition of the
