Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
AKHINISSERI KUMMULLIL SANTHINI @ SANTHINI SASHI – Appellant
Versus
RAYAROTH KODERI SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR – Respondent
RP NO. 1653 OF 2025 | RP NO. 1650 OF 2025 | RP NO. 1652 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.V.SURENDRAN, P.A.HARISH
For the Respondents: LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM, ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM, P.U.SHAILAJAN, S.L.SYLAJA
Court clarified that entitlement to apportionment must be determined based on title and merits, correcting prior referencing errors.
Headnote:(A) Review of earlier judgments concerning apportionment and documents utilization - Apprehensions regarding document consideration addressed; previous court directives emphasized the substantive decision remains with the merits. Errors in section references corrected from 13 to 30. (Paras 5-6)
(B) Impleading application decision - Finding made on prima facie case basis. Entitlement based on title and merits of the case unrelated to previous Commission report conclusions. (Paras 5-7)
Facts of the case:
The court addresses apprehensions regarding document consideration in subsequent proceedings, affirming prior directions for implementing applications while deferring merits on apportionment to future hearings.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified the standards by which documents would be considered in the determinations, ensuring prior court decisions guided subsequent actions. Adjustments to references made for precision in legal submission.
Issues: The main issues addressed concerned the approach to introducents in apportionment cases and clarification of document review standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that decisions on entitlement are subject to factual examination without undue reliance on past Commission reports and that the merits should dictate outcomes rather than preliminary findings.
Result: Review petitions are closed.
ORDER
These review petitions have been filed on an apprehension that while considering the question of apportionment, the Court will not look into documents and would also look into documents which should not be looked into. I do not find any reason for such apprehension. This Court has specifically directed the court below to consider the question of impleading alone and at that stage there is no requirement to render any finding regarding the right of apportionment. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the court below has allowed the impleading application, finding that a prima facie case has been made out. The said finding can only be a finding for the purpose of the impleading petition and the question whether the persons who have been impleaded are entitled to apportionment is to be decided on merits without any reference to the said prima facie finding. In the judgment in O.P(C).No.993 of 2018 which arise from LAR.No.86 of 2013, this Court had noted the argument of the counsel for the respondents that there is already an observation that the Commission report filed in LAR.No.85 of 2013 should not be looked into for the purpose of deciding LAR.No.86 of 2013. The said argument also has to be considered on merits. The entitlement is to be based on the title and not solely based on a Commission report and that too in a different case. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent in R.P.Nos.1650 of 2025, 1652 of 2025 and 1653 of 2025 is no more. The above submission is also noted and it is for the parties to implead necessary parties if so required before the court below. In the judgment in O.P(C).Nos.2284 of 2018 and 2181 of 2018 the reference to Section 13 is corrected as Section 30.
With the above observations all these review petitions are closed.
