Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.M.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 59 YEARS versus DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.M.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 59 YEARS v. DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI - WP(C) No. 6707 of 2005(W) [2007] RD-KL 12154 (5 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6707 of 2005(W)

1. K.M.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI,
... Respondent

2. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOODIRI

3. SAVITHRI ANTHERJANAM,

4. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI,RESIDING AT DO. DO.

5. THANKAM @ SREEDEVI, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

6. NARAYANA NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT DO.DO.

7. LEELA ANTHERJANAM

8. NANGAYYA ANTHERJANAM,

9. SREEDEVI @ AKAYIL THAMPURAN,

10. SAVITHRI ANTHERJANAM,

11. PARAMEL MANAKKAL VALIYA

12. RUDRAN @ RAVI NAMBOODIRI,

13. P.M.SAVITHRI D/O. DO. RESIDING AT DO.

14. KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI,S/O. DO.

15. P.M.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI

16. RAMAN NAMBOODIRI,

17. RAMAN, MINOR BY GUARDIAN PARAMEL

18. P.R.RAMANARAYANA PRASAD,

19. UMADEVI @ BINDU D/O. DO. RESIDING AT DO.

20. UMADEVI ANTHERJANAM

21. K.G.NAIR, ADVOCATE OTTAPPALAM

For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

For Respondent :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :05/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 6707 of 2005

Dated this the 5th day of July , 2007



JUDGMENT

The persuasive and strenuous submissions of Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I am unable to agree with him when he submits that Ext.P4 order of the Sub Judge is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference by this court under the visitorial jurisdiction. Under Ext.P4 the court has directed the public auction in respect of a lake after finding that a physical division of the lake is not practically possible since it is a very extensive one. According to the court, a public auction will be beneficial to the sharers. During the course of the submissions, I enquired of the learned counsel Mr.Sethumadhavan whether the petitioner will be prepared to offer at least Rs.10 Lakhs as a price for the lack in question. After consulting the petitioner, he answered in the negative. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the receiver had fixed market value for garden lands situated near to the town at around Rs.2,000/- per cent only and WPC No. 6707/2005 2 therefore the market value of the lake cannot be as high as I suggested. Inviting my attention to Ext.P1 share list, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner belongs to the group of major shareholders and under Ext.P1 his group entitled for Rs.1,24,390/-. The court below should be directed to allot the property worth that much from out of the lake in question to the petitioner.

2. Sri.T.C.Mohandas the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and Smt.Bhadrakumari, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would resist the submissions of Sri.Sethumadhavan. Sri.Mohandas would submit that 14th respondent is an Antherjanam who is now constrained to take shelter in an Ashram and that the petitioner is clinging on to the entire property appropriating the entire income for himself.

3. As already indicated, the question for decision in this writ petition under Article 227 is whether Ext.P4 order can be said to be one justifying invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction, I am not able to say that Ext.P4 is a perverse order or an order which violates law. It cannot also be said that Ext.P4 will result in failure of justice or gross injustice. There is no warrant for WPC No. 6707/2005 3 interference with Ext.P4. At the same time submissions of Mr.Sethumadahvan that I.A. No. 292/2005 filed by the petitioner is not being considered by the learned judge is to be taken note of. There is a similar submission from Sri.Mohandas and Smt.BhadraKumari that disposal of final decree application itself is getting delayed indefinitely to the detriment of their clients. Having regard to those submissions, even as I approve Ext.P4 and dispose of the writ petition without granting the relief sought for. I direct the learned sub judge to take up I.A.292/2005, hear all the concerned parties and take an early decision on the same at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. Similarly, I direct the learned judge to take up final decree application at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of finalization of the auction which is presently ordered under Ext.P4 and dispose of that application also. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

dpk WPC No. 6707/2005 4 dpk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.