Thankamma vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16961 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
  THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

    1     THANKAMMA
          AGED 74 YEARS
          W/O. KUTTAPPANACHARI, VALAYATHIL, ELAMANNOOR,
          ENADIMANGALAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691524.

          BY ADVS.
          NOBEL RAJU
          C.R.JAYAKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE
          DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

    2     THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
          PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645.

    3     THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL
          OFFICER
          ADOOR, OFFICE OF THE RDO, ADOOR,
          PATHANAMTHITTA -691523.

    4     SHEEJA
          W/O. SURESHKUMAR, THOPPIL PADINJATTATHIL,
          ELAMANNOOR, ENADIMANGALAM, ADOOR,
          PATHANAMTHITTA - 691524.

    5     SURESHKUMAR
          S/O. GOPALAN, THOPPIL PADINJATTATHIL, ELAMANNOOR,
          ENADIMANGALAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691524.

          BY ADV. SR GP BIMAL K NATH
 WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2021
                                    2




      THIS    WRIT     PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON     12.08.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2021
                                 3




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of August, 2021

The petitioner is a senior citizen. She is aged 74

years and her husband is 77 years old. According to

them, respondents 4 & 5 who are their close relatives,

had undertaken to take care of them. Accordingly, a

settlement deed was executed, settling the properties in

their favour. A life interest was also secured. However,

the respondents 4 & 5 refused to maintain the petitioner

and her husband, it is alleged. She filed Ext.P1

application, which resulted in Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by

the above order, she preferred Ext.P3 appeal, which

seems to have been filed some time in August, 2021.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the above appeal

has not been taken up for hearing.

2. It seems that the appeal was filed only recently.

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner projected

the urgency since, the petitioner and her husband are

residing in a single room portion of the main building, WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2021

which is stated to be in a dilapidated condition.

3. After having considered this, I am inclined to

dispose of the Writ Petition itself, without issuing notice

to the remaining respondents, by directing the second

respondent to take up Ext.P3 application and to dispose it

of, at any rate, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or from the

date of completion of service, whichever is later. If the

service is not complete on the respondents, the appellant

shall take necessary steps to ensure that steps are

completed at the earliest.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/12-8 WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16410/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.11.2014.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C4/9311/19 KDIS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12/12/2019

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL CUM EXECUTION PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2021.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE