Rukmani vs Rajamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 1355 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
         TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
                            RP NO. 76 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RFA 238/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

     1       RUKMANI, AGED 80 YEARS,
             W/O LATE SIVANANDI, VADAKKEMANGALATH HOUSE, MONASTREE
             LANE, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM,
             KOCHI-682 011.
     2       JAYAN V.S, AGED 56 YEARS,
             S/O LATE SIVANANDI, VADAKKEMANGALATH HOUSE, MONASTREE
             LANE, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
             ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.
     3       GEETHA V.S, AGED 50 YEARS,
             S/O LATE SIVANANDI, VADAKKEMANGALATH HOUSE,
             MONASTREE LANE, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
             ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.
     4       RADAKRISHNAN V.S, AGED 45 YEARS,
             S/O LATE SIVANANDI, VADAKKEMANGALATH HOUSE,
             MONASTREE LANE, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
             ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.
             BY ADVS.
             P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)
             SMITHA MATHEW
             JIJI THOMAS


RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

             RAJAMMA V.K., AGED 83 YEARS,
             W/O LATE AYAPPAN, CHEMALASSERIYIL HOUSE,
             RAMAMANGALAM P.O., RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 673
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 76 OF 2022                   2

                               O R D E R

The review petition is filed on the ground that at

the time when the judgment was rendered, there is failure

on the part of the counsel who appeared on behalf of the

respondent to address their argument based on the

affidavit sworn by the party (Ext.B9) in a different

proceedings, wherein there is an admission to the effect

that she is the uterine sister of deceased Vasudevan.

That question was not taken up or agitated at the time of

final argument. But for safeguarding interest, the said

question left open for consideration by the trial court

since there is an order of remand of the matter. With

that observation, the present review petition is disposed

of. The abovesaid question is also left open for

adjudication by the trial court. The time limit specified

earlier will stand extended for another three months from

today.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE MSP

APPENDIX OF RP 76/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES:

Annexure A1 INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI DATED 5.1.2021 ALONG WITH THE AUTHENTICATED COPY OF THE REGISTER OF BIRTHS DURING THE RELEVANT TIME