Elsy Antony vs K.V.Antony
2021 Latest Caselaw 2829 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

      MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.2071 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 23216/2015

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23216/2015(B) OF HIGH COURT OF
                     KERALA DATED 31.07.2015


PETITIONERS/PETITIONER:

      1      ELSY ANTONY, AGED 66 YEARS
             THETTAYIL HOUSE, CHAMPANNOOR NORTH,
             ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O., ANGAMALY-683572.

      2      LEELA, AGED 55 YEARS
             W/O.LATE VARGHESE, PALLIPPATTU HOUSE,
             CHAMPANNOOR NORTH, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O.,
             ANGAMALY-683572.

             BY ADV. MEREENA JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS/5TH AND 1ST RESPONDENTS:

      1      K.V.ANTONY
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
             SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRATION OFFICE,
             ANGAMALY P.O., ANGAMALY-683572.

      2      DR. A.JAYATHILAK,
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
             SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.



             SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.2071 OF 2020           2




                                JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2021

The contempt case is filed against the judgment of the year 2015. This Court directed the appeal against fair value fixed to be considered, pending which the the registration was directed to be carried out. If the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, it was also directed that excess amounts would be refunded. The appeal is said to have been allowed as per Annexure A3 dated 29.03.2016. There is gross delay in filing the above contempt case.

In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that no contempt will lie. But the petitioner would be entitled to seek remedies in accordance with the judgment.

Contempt case is rejected with liberty.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp/27/01/2021 //True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23216/2015 DATED 31.7.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2015.

ANNEXURE III A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 29.3.2016.

ANNEXURE IV A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 21.7.2016.

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT FOR REFUND OF REGISTRATION FEES DATED 17.8.2016.

ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT FOR REFUND TO EXCESS STAMP DUTY PAID DATED 17.8.2016.