Kerala High Court
Bhaskaran vs District Collector on 21 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 27310 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BHASKARAN
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O KORU (LATE), PUTHUPULLY HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPAL
VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680310.
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
RAFEEK. V.K.
P.PARVATHY
AATHIRA SUNNY
NAZRIN HALLAJ
NASEEBA K.T.
AKHILESH S.
LAKSHMINARAYAN.R
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA-680003.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CIVIIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, KERALA-
680125.
3 SREEJITH P B.
S/O BHASKARAN, PUTHUPULLY HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPAL
P.O, THOTTIPAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680310.
4 NIKHILA SREEJITH
W/O SREEJITH,
PUTHUPULLY HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPAL P.O, THOTTIPAL
VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680310.
5 SUCHITHRA GIRIJAN
D/O BHASKARAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,, PANANKULAM P.O,
KARUVAROOR, PORATHISSERY, CHERUP VILLAGE, THRISSUR-
680561.
WP(C) NO. 27310 OF 2021 2
6 RAJI ANANDAN
D/O BHASKARAN, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA P.O,
MUTHUVARA, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680551.
7 ANANDAN
HUSBAND OF RAJI,
MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA P.O, MUTHUVARA,
PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680551.
8 USHA RAMESHKUMAR
D/O BHASKARAN, PALLIALAPPIL HOUSE, PALAKKAPARAMBU
P.O, KALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680302.
9 RAMESH KUMAR
HUSBAND OF USHA,
PALLIALAPPIL HOUSE, PALAKKAPARAMBU P.O, KALLUR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680302.
10 PRASAD P B.
S/O BHASKARAN, PUTHUPULLY HOUSE, , MULANGU,
THOTIPAL P.O, THOTTIPAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680310.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIMAL K. NATH, SR.GP
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27310 OF 2021 3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27310 of 2021
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21th day of October, 2022
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent in his
capacity as the Maintenance Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer,
while issuing Ext.P2 order has restricted the order only with regard to
the grant of maintenance and the request for setting aside a
settlement deed executed by the petitioner has been rejected for the
reason that I.A.1625/2018 is pending before the Thrissur Vacation
Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and
2 are duty bound to consider the application and pass a positive order
either granting the reliefs or rejecting the reliefs and they could not
refuse to pass an order on the ground that a civil suit is pending. It is
also submitted that the civil suit is for a partition and has nothing to
do with the document in question. The Counsel for the respondents 4
to 9 objects the above prayer stating that the petitioner has an
alternative remedy of appeal and that even if the document is to be
set aside, it is necessary to go into the recitations in the document to
consider whether the document itself says that the settlement is on
condition of maintenance. It is also submitted that the suit which has
been filed by the 10th respondent includes this property and it is
contended that being an ancestral property, it is liable to be
partitioned. As far as the respondents 4 to 9 are concerned they have
accepted the settlement deed which is the reason why an order of
maintenance has been issued as Ext.P2. The acceptance of the
settlement deed itself goes to show that they have accepted the
absolute right of the petitioner to execute a settlement deed and
according to them the property is not partible. Since the document is
a registered settlement deed, unless the document is set aside in a
manner known to law, its validity cannot be questioned. In such
circumstances, the reasoning in Ext.P2 order to deny consideration of
the relief regarding setting aside the document is not justified.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in
the following manner:
1. The respondents 1 and 2 shall take up the application
submitted by the petitioner and pass fresh orders regarding the
question whether the settlement deed is liable to be cancelled in
exercise of the powers available to the Maintenance Tribunal.
2. The order Ext.P2 in so far as it relates to grant of
maintenance is confirmed. The order in so far as it rejects the prayer
for cancellation of the settlement deed concerned is set aside to
facilitate the reconsideration directed above.
Orders shall be passed after hearing all the affected parties and
the petitioner and it is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion regarding the merits of the respective claims. On the
question whether the settlement deed is liable to be set aside or not,
necessary orders shall be issued within four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. This order and the order that may
be passed by the authorities shall be subject to the result of
O.S.954/2018 as regards the question of partibility of the property
which has been included in the settlement deed.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
LEK
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27310/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED BEARING
NO.4139/2014 DATED 4TH NOVEMBER 2014.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF IRINJALAKUDA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE DATED 10TH JULY
2019.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT FILED
BEFORE THE HON'BLE THRISSUR DISTRICT
VACATION COURT AS TDC IA 1625/18 IN OS
954/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF
COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A. NO.
1627/2018 IN O.S NO.954/2018.
