Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.A.SIMON, KALATHINGAL HOUSE versus M.L.MARY, W/O.KOCHUPOULOSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.A.SIMON, KALATHINGAL HOUSE v. M.L.MARY, W/O.KOCHUPOULOSE - WA No. 2259 of 2005(A) [2007] RD-KL 9571 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2259 of 2005(A)

1. K.A.SIMON, KALATHINGAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M.L.MARY, W/O.KOCHUPOULOSE,
... Respondent

2. K.K.PAULSON, KALATHINGAL HOUSE,

3. K.K.BABU, KALATHINGAL HOUSE,

4. K.K.JENNY, D/O.LATE KOCHUPOULOSE AND

5. K.K.MOLLY, W/O.K.A.KOCHIPULOSE &

6. K.K.KOCHURANI, W/O.KOCHU PAULOSE &

7. M.V.ANNIE, W/O.LATE K.A.XAVIER,

8. RAJAN XAVIER, S/O.LATE K.A.XAVIER,

9. SHEELA XAVIER, D/O.LATE K.A.XAVIER,

10. M.V.MARY, W/O.LATE K.A.KOCHANTHONY,

11. K.K.SAJU, S/O.K.A.KOCHANTHONY,

12. K.K.JESSY, D/O.LATE K.A.KOCHANTHONY,

13. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

14. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

15. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

16. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEDBY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

K.S.Radhakrishnan &

Antony Dominic, JJ.


========================
W.A.No.2259 of 2005
========================

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan,J.

Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the Government and also for consequential reliefs. The issue involved in the Writ Petition is with regard to the right of management of an L.P. School and its properties belonged to one Kalathingal Anthony. He was also managing the School. Anthony has four sons. Petitioner is the youngest son. Anthony executed Ext.P1 Will in respect of all his properties which include a School building also. As per the terms of the Will, the School property will vest in one-fourth shares on the sons of Anthony while WA 2259/05 -: 2 :- management of the School claims to be vested on the petitioner. On the basis of a joint application made by the petitioner and Anthony during the life time of Anthony, the Department transferred management of the School in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.1965 and the petitioner continued to be the Manager even after the death of Anthony. Since the petitioner was a Teacher, he transferred his managership over the School in the year1968 in favour of his sister Annakutty. Annakutty continued as Manager of the School for 12 years. Later, management was transferred to Kochupoulose, another brother of the petitioner. In the year 1987 the petitioner retired from service and the managership was transferred in his favour and transfer was approved by the Department. The other three brothers of the petitioner raised a claim that they are also entitled to equal shares over the managership of the School and that a Corporate Educational Agency was formed when the testator passed away.

2. Government, when the matter came before it, gave a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to convene a meeting of all the legal heirs and to take a decision as per majority for the constitution of the Corporate Educational Agency and for appointment of Manager of the School. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, petitioner filed the Writ Petition. Learned single Judge did not interfere with that part WA 2259/05 -: 3 :- of Ext.P8 by which the Deputy Director of Education was directed to convene a meeting of the petitioner and respondents 1 to 12 to take a decision as to whether the By-laws of the Corporate Educational Agency should be approved and also as to who should be the Manager of the School. Learned single Judge did not approve Ext.P8 to the extent it deals with the validity or otherwise of the sale deed allegedly executed by the petitioner and the learned single Judge vacated the finding of the Government in Ext.P8 regarding the validity of the sale deed observing that that issue should be decided in appropriate other proceedings to be initiated by any of the parties.

3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that an educational agency has already been constituted and that has been approved. In the circumstances, rest of the findings entered by the Government which were confirmed by the learned single Judge are not to be disturbed. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has preferred a suit, O.S.No.142 of 2007 at Irinjalakuda Court for a declaration that he is entitled to get the managership of the School on the strength of the Will. Since disputes regarding the various terms of the Will is being considered by the Civil Court, we are not expressing our final opinion on the terms of the Will. But we make it clear that the views expressed by this Court as well as by the Government will have no WA 2259/05 -: 4 :- bearing with regard to the issues pending consideration by the Civil Court. With the above observations, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. K.S.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Antony Dominic, Judge. ess 6/6


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.