Kerala High Court
Rajesh Khanna vs Dr.S.Nangeli Andharjanam on 26 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
Thursday, the 26th day of May 2022 / 5th Jyaishta, 1944
IA.NO.1/2022 IN RSA NO. 276 OF 2022
OS 1/2011 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT KOLLAM
AS 63/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT ,KOLLAM
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
RAJESH KHANNA,S/O.LATE RAVEENDRAN,KANAKALAYAM,VADAKKEVILA CHERRY,VADAKKEVILA
P.O.,KOLLAM.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1.DR.S.NANGELI ANDHARJANAM,W/O.LATE DR.C.D.RADHAKRISHNAN,KAMMANCHERY,SANKER
NAGAR,KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE,KOLLAM.
2.DR.KRISHNAN RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE DR.C.D.RADHAKRISHNAN,KAMMANCHERY,SANKER
NAGAR,KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE,KOLLAM.
3.FARIDA,D/O.LATE DR.C.D.RADHAKRISHNAN,KAMMANCHERY,SANKER NAGAR,KOLLAM EAST
VILLAGE,KOLLAM.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High
Court be pleased to stay the execution of the decree and judgment passed in OS.No.1/2011 on the
files of Principal Sub Court as confirmed in Judgment & Decree in AS.No.63 of 2016 on the files of the
Principle District Court,Kollam, pending disposal of the above Appeal and it is prayed accordingly.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit filed in
support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.LEO GEORGE, P.MARTIN JOSE, Advocates for
the petitioner aand of SRI.A.JANI for Caveator R1 and 3, the court passed the following:
SHIRCY V, J
------------------------------------------------
RSA.No.276 of 2022
&
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in RSA No.276 of 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022
ORDER
Heard. Admit.
The following substantial questions of law are formulated
for consideration:
i) When the plaintiffs claim an Oral Agreement for
Reconveyence of the Plaint Schedule Property, Whether the suit is
maintainable without a prayer for Specific Performance of the alleged
Oral Agreement for Sale?
ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding Exhibit B3
& B4 as sham documents ignoring the fact that there is no pleadings
or prayer for declaring the same as Void or Sham?
iii) When the plaintiff had admitted the title of the defendant
over the plaint Schedule Property in Exhibit B7 Affidavit annexed to
Exhibit B25, Whether such admissions of the Original Plaintiff can be
ignored while holding that the Defendant has not acquired title over
the plaint schedule property ?
iv) Does not the Courts below erred in relying on O.S.355/2008
as a circumstance to hold that the defendant has become the absolute
owner of the plaint schedule property as per Exhibit A1 Sale Deed ?
v) Does not the lower appellate court erred in not accepting the
Encumbrance certificate with respect to the plaint schedule property
RSA.No.276 of 2022
produced as additional evidence along with I.A.No.1/2021 ignoring
the fact that the same is a public document ?
vi) Does the lower appellate court erred in interpreting Section
55(3) of the Transfer of property Act ?
vii) Whether an inconsistent plea of Sham Transaction and a
Mortgage by Conditional Sale were self destructive and in such
circumstance the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit ?
Mr.A.Jani, counsel for Caveator appears for respondents 1
and 3. Issue notice to the 2nd respondent by speed post.
I.A.No.1 of 2022
All further proceedings in the execution petition in
O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam
shall stand stayed for a period of one month.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V
JUDGE
mpm
26-05-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
