Kerala High Court
Padmakumari vs Manoharan V on 17 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944
RP NO. 1114 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2022 IN FAO (RO) 184/2016 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/6th RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/6th DEFENDANT:
PADMAKUMARI, AGED 64 YEARS,
W/o BALAKRISHNAN, PALLIKANDATH HOUSE,
KINASSERY AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 508.
BY ADV RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.1 AND PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS 2
TO 14/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 AND 7 TO 16:
1 MANOHARAN V, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/o VELAYUDHAN, CHERNGOL HOUSE, ERUTHIYAMPATHY POST,
KOZHIJAMPARA VIA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 SREEDEVI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/o BHASKARAN, PUTHANPARA, KONGAD AMSOM, KONGAD POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 505
3 PREMAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/o VASUDEVAN, CHITTILAMCHERRY, MELARCODE POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 509.
4 RAMANI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/o SURENDRAN, VAISHNAVAM, CO-OP. COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR NEHRU THEATER, CHITTUR THARAKKALAM, CHITTUR POST,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 101.
5 SUSEELA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
W/o KESAVAN, EZHTHASSAN HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM DESOM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
RP No.1114 of 2022 &
RP No.39 of 2023 2
6 KOMALAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
W/o MOHANAN, NORTH KATTUR, TRICHI,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 620 014.
7 KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/o BHARATHRAJAN, 12/14 B.K.J LAY OUT,
MEENAKSHI AMMANKOVIL STREET, SULUR,
COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 642 205.
8 KAIRALIKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/o KUTTAPPAN, PLOT NO. 644, SELVAN NAGAR,
3rd MAIN ROAD, PONNIYAMMAN MEDU, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600 001.
9 MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/o VELAYUDHAN, TEACHER, RAGHAVAPURAM, ATHIKKODE,
CHITTUR POST & TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 507.
10 ANANTHAN, S/o VELAYUDHAN, CHERUNGOL HOUSE,
ERUTHIYAMPATHY POST, KOZHINJAMPARA VIA, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 578.
11 DEVAKI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/o MUTHU,
PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 578.
12 RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/o MUTHU, PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 578.
13 RAVI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o MUTHU,
PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 578.
14 SATHEEDEVI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/o BALAKRISHNAN, PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 578.
15 VISALAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
W/o UNNIKITTA, PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 578.
RP No.1114 of 2022 &
RP No.39 of 2023 3
16 KALADHARAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/o UNNIKITTA, PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 578.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2023, ALONG WITH RP.39/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.1114 of 2022 &
RP No.39 of 2023 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944
RP NO. 39 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2022 IN FAO (RO) No.184/2016 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.1/PLAINTIFF:
MANOHARAN V, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/o VELAYUDHAN, CHERNGOL HOUSE,
ERUTHIYAMPATHY POST, KOZHINJAMPARA VIA,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678555
BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
LIJU. M.P
JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS No.2 TO
14/DEFENDANTS:
1 SREEDEVI, AGED 73 YEARS,
W/o BHASKARAN, PUTHANPURA, KONGAD AMSON AND POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678505
2 PEMAKUMARI, AGED 69 YEARS,
W/o VASUDEVAN, CHITTILAMCHERRY, MELARCODE POST,
ALTHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678509
3 RAMANI, AGED 67 YEARS, W/o SURENDRAN,
VAISHNAVAM, CO-OP. COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR NEHRU THEATER, CHITTUR THARAKKALAM,
CHITTUR POST & TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678101
4 SUSEELA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/o KESAVAN,
EZHTHASSAN HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSON & DESOM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
5 KOMALAM, AGED 71 YEARS, W/o MOHANAN,
NORTH KATTUR, TRICHI, TAMINADU, PIN - 620014
RP No.1114 of 2022 &
RP No.39 of 2023 5
6 PADMAKUMARI, AGED 65 YEARS,
W/o BALAKRISHNAN, PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE,
KADUMTHURUTHY, KINASSERY AMSOM AND POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678508
7 KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED 71 YEARS,
W/o BHARATHRAJAN, 12/14, B.K.J. LAY OUT,
MEENAKSHI AMMANKOVIL STREET, SULUR,
COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN - 642205
8 KAIRALIKUMARI, AGED 63 YEARS,
W/o KUTTAPPAN, PLOT NO. 644, SELVAN NAGAR,
3RD MAIN ROAD, PONNIYAMMAN MEDU,
CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, PIN - 600001
9 MAHADEVAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/o VELAYUDHAN, TEACHER,RAGHAVAPURAM,
ATHIKKODE, CHITTUR POST & TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678507
10 ANANTHAN, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/o VELAYUDHAN, CHERUNGOL HOUSE,
ERUTHIYAMPATHY POST, KOZHINJAMPARA VIA,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678578
11 DEVAKI, AGED 82 YEARS, W/o MUTHU,
PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678506
12 RAJAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/o MUTHU,
PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678506
13 RAVI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/o MUTHU,
PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678506
14 SATHEEDEVI, AGED 68 YEARS, W/o BALKRISHNAN,
PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE, KANDUMTHURUTHY,
KINASSERY AMSOM & POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678506
RP No.1114 of 2022 &
RP No.39 of 2023 6
15 VISALAKSHI, AGED 73 YEARS,
W/o UNNIKITTA, RESIDING AT KADUTHURUTHY MANNATH,
KINASSERY AMSON & POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678506
16 KALADHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/o UNNIKITTA, PALLIKKANDATH HOUSE,
KANDUMTHURUTHY, KINASSERY AMSOM & POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678506
R6 BY ADV. SRI. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2023, ALONG WITH RP.1114/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.1114 of 2022 &
RP No.39 of 2023 7
ORDER
These two review petitions were filed by the
respective parties based on an alleged factual error
crept in the impugned judgment. But, it is fairly
submitted by both the counsel that except the factual
error, the order passed by this court remanding the
matter back to the first appellate court deserves no
interference. Since the matter is remanded back to the
first appellate court for addressing all the issues
involved in the suit in accordance with the mandate as
laid down by this court in Gopalakrishnan and Another v.
Ponnappan and others [2021 (5) KHC 548] followed by the
decision of the Apex Court in Bhairab Chandra Nandan v.
Ranadhir Chandra Dutta (1988 KHC 883), it is not at all
necessary to go into that factual error, if any, crept in
the judgment. Hence, both the review petitions will stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
