Sylus Rajeevan vs Vincent
2021 Latest Caselaw 22016 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22016 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2021

Kerala High Court

Sylus Rajeevan vs Vincent on 3 November, 2021

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
        Wednesday, the 3rd day of November 2021 / 12th Karthika, 1943
                     IA.NO.2/2021 IN RSA NO. 371 OF 2021
                    AS 15/2014 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA,
            OS 658/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

  1. SYLUS RAJEEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KUTTI NADAR, KAMALA VILASAM
     BUNGLOW, MEENOTTUKAVU, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
  2. MERCY PUSHPALEELA, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O. MERCY REMANI, KAMALA VILASAM
     BUNGLOW, MEENOTTUKAVU, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

  1. VINCENT, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUKUNJAN NADAR, PARAYANVILA VEEDU,
     ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 132.
  2. THANKARAJ, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAYYAN NADAR, PARAYANVILA VEEDU,
     ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 132.
  3. YESUNESAM, AGED 84 YEARS, D/O. THANKAMMA, VADAKKEPONVILA PUTHEN
     VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
  4. MABLE THILAKAM, AGED 68 YEARS, D/O. YESUNESAM, VADAKKEPONVILA PUTHEN
     VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
  5. MABLE GLADIS, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O. YESUNESAM, VADAKKEPONVILA PUTHEN
     VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
  6. MABLE VIMALA, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. YESUNESAM, VADAKKEPONVILA PUTHEN
     VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
  7. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. JNANMUTHAN, VADAKKEPONVILA PUTHEN
     VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
  8. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. JNANMUTHAN, VADAKKEPONVILA
     PUTHEN VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA
     TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
  9. PONNAMMA, AGED 89 YEARS D/O. KUTTY NADAR, AYANIVILA VEEDU,
     ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121.
 10. RAJABHAI, AGED 77 YEARS, D/O. NESAMMA, PAUL NIVAS, ANCHALIKONAM,
     PARASUVAIKAL DESOM, PARASUVAIKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
     508.
 11. PAUL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. PALAYYAN, PAUL NIVAS, ANCHALIKONAM,
     PARASUVAIKAL DESOM, PARASUVAIKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
     508.
 12. PAULSI RAJAM, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. RAJABHAI, KRIPA BHAVAN, CHEMBOOR,
     OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 125.
  13. PAULSI RANI, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. RAJABHAI, SALOM K.N.R.A. 14,
     KADAPATHALA NAGAR, KAWADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003.

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to stay all further
proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in
AS.No.15 of 2014 of the Court of the Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara, pending
final disposal of this Regular Second Appeal.
     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN & SRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR,
Advocates for the petitioners, the court passed the following:
                         N.ANIL KUMAR,J.
                    ------------------------------
                      R.S.A.No. 371 of 2021
                   -------------------------------
            Dated this the 3rd day of November,2021

                          ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This

second appeal is admitted on the following substantial

questions of law:-

1. Is not the finding of the courts below that an enquiry under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure conclusively determines the marital status of the person impleaded contrary to law? Whether the impleadment of Stella as the legal heir of deceased Thankan conclusively determines the issue whether Stella is the legally married wife of Thankan?

2. Whether a judgment inter partes in a previous proceedings is relevant only if it qualifies under Sections 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act? Is not the findings in Ext.A8 between the predecessor in interest of the first respondent and the second appellant binding upon the first respondent and the first respondent estopped from contending contrary to the findings therein?

3. Did not the courts below act contrary to law in holding that the succession to the estate of deceased Thankan is to be done under the Hindu Succession Act contrary to law, having regard to the fact that Thankan and Stella admittedly were married under the Special Marriage Act?

Issue notice to the respondents.

R.S.A.No.371 of 2021

:-2-:

I.A.No.2 of 2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

All further proceedings pursuant to the judgment

and decree dated 18.03.2020 in A.S.No.15 of 2014 of the Sub

Court, Neyyattinkara arising from the judgment and decree

dated 7.12.2013 in O.S.No.658 of 2011 of the Principal Munsiff's

Court, Neyyattinkara stand stayed for a period of three months.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE