Nachi vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13353 Ker

WP(C) NO. 12024 OF 2021                         1




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT

                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943

                                  WP(C) NO. 12024 OF 2021

PETITIONER/S:

               NACHI
               AGED 78 YEARS
               W/O.MUHAMMED, MONIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR, ERAMALLOOR
               VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

               BY ADVS.
               ALEXANDER JOSEPH
               AKHILASREE BHASKARAN



RESPONDENT/S:

       1        STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
                REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

       2        THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
                OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

       3        THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
                DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, PERIMBILLY BLDG,
                M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM-682 011.

       4        THE SUB REGISTRAR,
                SUB REGISTRATION OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 666.

       5        SALAM
                AGED 40 YEARS
                S/O.MUHAMMED, MONIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR, ERAMALLOOR
                VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, GP


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12024 OF 2021                     2




                          P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                     --------------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C.) No.12024 of 2021
                        --------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 28th day of June, 2021


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the widow of late Muhammed and 5 th

respondent is their youngest son. The petitioner and late

Muhammed had 6 sons and 4 daughters. The daughter Saliha is a

mentally retarded person. The petitioner and late Muhammed

were residing in their house with the mentally retarded daughter,

Saliha. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 deed, the

property in which the residential house is situated was

transferred to the 5th respondent. It was a settlement deed. One

of the condition in Ext.P1 is that the 5th respondent will look after

the affairs of the petitioner and her husband. They will also be

allowed to stay in the residential house till their death and they

are entitled to take usufructs from the property. According to the

petitioner and her husband, the 5th respondent violated the

conditions in the settlement deed. Therefore, the husband of the

petitioner cancelled the deed as per Ext.P2. The husband of the

petitioner want to register the cancellation deed. As per Ext.P3

order, the Sub-Registrar, Kothamangalam rejected the prayer of

the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the husband of the

petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal under Sec.72 of the Registration

Act, 1908. According to the counsel, the appeal was heard and it

was posted for orders and there was no response from the

appellate authority thereafter. Subsequently, the husband of the

petitioner died. Another son of the petitioner submitted an

application under the Right to Information Act before the

appellate authority about the present stage of the appeal. As per

Ext.P10, it was informed that the file relating to the appeal was

misplaced. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11

application for reconstruction of appeal No.INS 4/3737/2014 filed

by her husband. She wants to implead in the appeal and she

wants to consider the appeal on merit, after hearing her.

2. The Government Pleader submitted that even as per

Ext.P3 order, it is clearly stated that the petitioner can approach

the Tribunal constituted as per Senior Citizens Act. The

Government Pleader submitted that the files are not located.

3. After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition can

be disposed, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P11 and

pass appropriate orders in it, after hearing the petitioner and the

5th respondent. I make it clear that if the file relating to the

appeal filed by the husband of the petitioner is missing, the

appeal is to be reconstructed with the help of the petitioner and

the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the appeal is to be heard on

merits and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, this writ petition

is disposed in the following manner :

1) The 3rd respondent will consider Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders

in it, in accordance to law, after hearing the petitioner and the 5 th

respondent within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

2) If the file relating to the appeal mentioned in Ext.P11 is missing, the

appellate authority will reconstruct the appeal with the help of the

petitioner and the 5th respondent and thereafter, dispose the appeal

itself, as expeditiously as possible.

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12024/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3479/2009 DATED 17.09.2009 OF SRO KOTHAMANGALAM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 22.09.2014 BY THE LATE MUHAMMAD.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C NO.161/14 DATED 01.10.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2010 IN WPC NO.34367/2009 AND WPC NO.37150/2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2012 IN WPC NO.35040/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.INS (4) 3737/2014 OF LATE MUHAMMAD BEFORE THE 3RD REPSONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 06.02.2015 IN IA NO.102/2015 IN OS NO.21/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2019 IN OS NO.21/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 23.01.2021 IN OS NO.20/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/INFORMATION DATED 12.02.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.