Pradeep Kumar vs Unnikrishnan
2022 Latest Caselaw 872 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
  FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943
                    RP NO. 103 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13465/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                          KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/3RD PARTY:

    1     PRADEEP KUMAR
          AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARA PANICKER, LEKSHANA
          THURAVASSERIL, PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKARA 690101

    2     AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 47, S/O.KARUNAKARA PANICKER,
          LEKSHANA THURAVASSERIL, PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKARA
          690101
          BY ADVS.
          K.SASIKUMAR
          S.ARAVIND
          P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

    1     UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN ACHARI,
          OORALISSERIL KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KOTTARKKAVU,
          MAVELIKARA P O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690101
    2     MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
          SECRETARY, MAVELIKARA P O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -
          690101
    3     SECRETARY, MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY, MAVELIKARA P
          O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690101
    4     DEEPA V BABU, W/O.RATHEESH, LAKSHANAYIL,
          MANACADU MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA -
          690101
          BY ADV.GEORGE VARGHESE PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Review Petition No.103 of 2022           2




                         P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
                 -----------------------------------------------
                   Review Petition No.103 of 2022
                                       in
                       W.P.(C) No.13465 of 2020
                 -----------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 21st day of January, 2022.


                                 ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and

the learned counsel for the first respondent.

2. It is seen that in the matter of passing the

judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court was proceeding on the

premise that no proceedings whatsoever has been instituted by the

members of the family "Lakshana" in the light of the observations

made by this Court in paragraph 9 of Ext.P6 judgment to establish

any right in the property covered by the order of assignment

obtained by Sri.Balarama Panicker in terms of Kerala Service Inam

Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 under whom the first

respondent is claiming a tenancy.

3. It is seen from the materials made available in the

review petition that a suit as O.S.No.313 of 2017 has been instituted

by the petitioners in the review petition claiming to be the members

of the family "Lakshana", before the Munsiff court, Mavelikkara in

respect of the said property.

In the circumstances, the review petition is disposed of

clarifying that the judgment sought to be reviewed will not preclude

the review petitioners from establishing any right in the property

where the building which is the subject matter of the writ petition is

situated.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

YKB