Thankappa Kurup Desava Kurup vs Nani Rajamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 4909 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                RP.No.832 OF 2020 IN RSA. 276/2005

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RSA 276/2005(G) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

      1      THANKAPPA KURUP DESAVA KURUP
             AGED 70 YEARS
             S/O GOVINDA PILLAI, KOIVEELIL VEETIL FROM THANNICKAL
             VEETIL, SASTHAMKOTTAH P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT

      2      THANKAPPA KURUP BHASKARA KURUP,
             AGED 68 YEARS
             S/O GOVINDA PILLAI, PORNAMI FROM THANNICKAL VEETIL,
             SASTHAMKOTTAH P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT

      3      KANAKAMMA,
             AGED 65 YEARS
             W/O SIVANKUTTY NAIR, S.K.NIVAS, IVERKALA, NADUVILLA
             P.O., PUTHENPALAM,KOLLAM.

      4      THANKAPPA KURUP SAHADEV KURUP,
             AGED 62 YEARS
             S/O GOVINDA PILLAI, KOIVEELIL VEEDU,
             SASTHAMKOTTAH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.S.SREEDEV
             SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:

      1      NANI RAJAMMA
             KOTTAKKAKATHU VEETTIL, AAYIKUNNATHU MURI, SOORANADU
             THEKKE VILLAGE,

      2      NANI VANAJAKSHI,
             KOTTACHAKATHU VEETIL, AAYIKUNNATHU MURI, SOORANADU
             THEKKE VILLAGE.

      3      PADMANABHAN DEVARAJAN,
             KOTTACHAKATHU VEETIL, AAYIKUNNATHU MURI, SOORANADU
             THEKKE VILLAGE, AAYIKUNNATHU MURI, SOORANADU THEKKE
             VILLAGE,
      RP.No.832 OF 2020 IN
     RSA. 276/2005
                               2


4       GEETHA,
        GANGOTHARAYIL, MUNDAKKALMURIYIL, KOLLAM VILLAGE

5       GIRI,
        GANGOTHARAYIL, MUNDAKKALMURIYIL, KOLLAM VILLAGE

6       GIRIJA,
        GANGOTHARAYIL, MUNDAKKALMURIYIL, KOLLAM VILLAGE

7       GANGA,
        GANGOTHARAYIL, MUNDAKKALMURIYIL, KOLLAM VILLAGE

8       SUDHARMA,
        W/O DEVARAJAN, KATTISSERIL VEEDU, KAKKUNNU P.O.,
        SOORANADU THEKKE VILLAGE.

9       LEELA VASANTHAKUMAR,
        SAHITHI NO 7, CACHERRY WARD

10      SANTHOSH
        S/O DEVARAJAN, KATTISSERI VEEDU, INCHAKKAD,
        SOORANADU, THEKKE VILLAGE.

11      SAJEEV,
        S/O DEVARAJAN, KATTISSERI VEEDU, INCHAKKAD,
        SOORANADU, THEKKE VILLAGE.

12      DR. LATHIKABAI,
        MOHAN NIVAS BUNGLOW, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM,
        KOLLAM

13      R. MALLIKA,
        MOHAN NIVAS BUNGLOW, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM,
        KOLLAM

14      R. RAJMOHAN,
        MOHAN NIVAS BUNGLOW, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM,
        KOLLAM DISTRICT.

15      R. RAMU,
        MOHAN NIVAS BUNGLOW, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM,
        KOLLAM DISTRICT.

16      R. BEENA,
        MOHAN NIVAS BUNGLOW, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM,
        KOLLAM

17      DR. BINDU,
          RP.No.832 OF 2020 IN
         RSA. 276/2005
                                    3

            MOHAN NIVAS, BUNGLOW, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM
            KOLLAM


     THIS  REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING  BEEN   FINALLY  HEARD   ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.832 OF 2020 IN
RSA. 276/2005
                                 4



                            ORDER

This court while rendering final

judgment in the second appeal made certain

observations in paragraph No.3 regarding the

application of Section 4A of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act. It prima facie appears to be

not in accordance with the mandate under

Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

In fact, a mistake has been crept in the

judgment with respect to the application of

Section 4A.

2. The learned counsel for the review

petitioners canvased the attention of this

Court to a decision rendered by this Court

in Haneefa v. Naina Mohammed Rowther (1986

KHC 472), in support of his argument that, a

subsequent amendment and a benefit conferred

upon a party can be agitated during the

subsequent stage of the proceedings or RP.No.832 OF 2020 IN RSA. 276/2005

separately, irrespective of the question of

res judicata as embodied under Section 11

CPC. Section 4A was incorporated subsequent

to the finalization of preliminary decree.

Of course, the question of benefit under

Section 4A was raised in the final decree

stage and the parties had adduced evidence,

including a commission report showing the

improvement alleged to have made over the

property. All these were not taken into

consideration by this Court during the

second appellate stage.

3. As such, I am of the view that, it

is fit and proper to grant yet another

opportunity to both the parties to argue the

appeal touching on all the relevant aspects,

especially when this Court had committed a

grave mistake regarding the application of

Section 4A in paragraph No.3 of the RP.No.832 OF 2020 IN RSA. 276/2005

judgment. Hence the review petition is

allowed.

      The    judgment      in    RSA    No.276/2005    dated

13.08.2020 is recalled.                Post the appeal for

final       hearing   as    per      the   roster    and   if

possible,       on next week.




                                              Sd/-
                                        P.SOMARAJAN
                                           JUDGE
SPV