Kerala High Court
K.Madhavi vs Ramani on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RP NO. 954 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT. 14.07.23 IN RFA 873/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
-----
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN RFA/IMPLEADING RESPONDENTS IN
RFA:
1 K.MADHAVI
AGED 75 YEARS
D/O CHOYIKUTTY, NEDUMBARAMBUKUNNU, PERUVAYAL AMSOM,
VELLIPARAMBA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673024
2 SATHEEDEVI
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O CHOYIKUTTY, THUVVASSERY HOUSE, NEAR KOPRAPALLI, OLAVANNA
AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673025
3 P.BABY
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.JINACHANDRAN, AYANIPULLI VATTOLATH HOUSE, MANKAVU (P.O.)
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673007
4 P.SOBHANA
W/O.PRABHAKARAN, CHAKRAPURATH HOUSE NELLIKKODE, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673016.
5 ANITHA,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.PRAKASHAN, CHETTIKANDI HOUSE, WEST HILL (P.O.)
KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673005
6 P.SUNITHAN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.KANARAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTOOLY (P.O.) KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673001
7 P.BINDU
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.GIRISH KUMAR, MULLAMPOYIL HOUSE, KUTHIRAVATTOM (P.O.),
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
RP NO. 954 OF 2023 -2-
8 P.SINDHU
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.SALIL KUMAR, PAIKKATTUKAVIL CHERUKUTTIPPURATH HOUSE,
NELLIKKODE (P.O.) KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673016
9 SUCHITHRA LATHIKA.A
PARAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTOOLY (P.O), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
10 SHABEENA.P
W/O.PRASOBH M.M. VENGALATH HOUSE, NELLIKODE (P.O), KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673016
11 SHIJINA.P
W/O.BINILESH N.P.,MANDANKAVU (P.O.) NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE.,
PIN - 673614
12 SHIKHINA.P
W/O.BINEESH M.K., MOORTHIKAVIL HOUSE, CHEVAYUR (P.O)
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
13 PRASANNA
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O.RARICHAN, W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, MANJALATHATTU HOUSE,
CHERUKARA MEETHAL,OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
14 KANJANA
AGED 65 YEARS
D/O.RARICHAN, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUZHIPPALLY HOUSE, PUTHOOR
MADAM, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
15 VIJAYAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.RARICHAN, ALENATHAZHAM, KOTTULI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
16 REMADEVI
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O.RARICHAN, ALENATHAZHAM, KOTTULI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
17 GEETHA
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O.RARICHAN, W/O.MOHANAN DAS, PAYYADITHARA HOUSE,
VELLIPRAMBU, KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
18 GANESAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.RARICHAN, ALENATHAZHAM, KOTTULI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
RP NO. 954 OF 2023 -3-
19 BINDU
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O.RARICHAN, W/O.LATE SAJEEV KUMAR, ALENATHAZHAM, KOTTULI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
BY ADVS.
N.KRISHNA PRASAD
P.SHANES METHAR
BHARATH MOHAN
IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS IN RFA:
1 RAMANI,
W/O KRISHNAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM, DESOM (P.O),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673016.
2 REESH,
S/O KRISHNAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM, DESOM (P.O),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673016.
3 SAJEESH
S/O KRISHNAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM, DESOM (P.O),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673016.
4 RAJEESH
S/O KRISHNAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM, DESOM (P.O),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673016.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P. No.954 of 2023 in
R.F.A. No.873 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2023
O R D E R
The Review Petition is filed on two grounds - (i)
The observation of this Court in paragraph 10 of the
judgment that, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, is only prospective in operation, is not correct;
(ii) Notional partitions prior to the amendment are not
saved from the applicability of the amended Section 6 of
the Hindu Succession Act. The Kerala Joint Hindu Family
System (Abolition) Act, 1975, is having the effect of a
notional partition which is not saved under the proviso
to Section 6(1), nor is the benefit of Section 6(5) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended, attracted, is
the contention.
2. At paragraph 10 of the judgment sought to be
reviewed, this Court held that :-
R.P. No.954 of 2023 in
R.F.A. No.873 of 2013
"The said contention has no force in the light of Babu v.
Ayillalath Arunapriya, 2012 (4) KLT 487, wherein this Court
held that the amendment is only prospective in operation."
In Babu's case(supra) this Court held, "The legislature did not
specifically make the provisions retrospective. A careful reading of sub-
sections (1) and (5) of Section 6 of the said Act indicates that the Act is
prospective." As contended by the learned counsel it could
possibly be argued as being retroactive in operation.
Anyhow the same is inconsequential in the case at hand
in light of the answer on the second contention.
3. As regards the second contention, the answer is
very much available at paragraph 17 of the judgment in
Babu's case supra, which reads thus :-
17. The aforementioned provisions give no room for doubt. The
provision applies only to coparcenary property surviving as on
the date of enactment of the amended provision of the Hindu
Succession Act. As noticed above, in the State of Kerala, after
the enactment of Act 30/1976, coparcenary property ceases to
exist and all the members in the coparcenary who till then were
R.P. No.954 of 2023 in
R.F.A. No.873 of 2013
joint-tenants become tenants-in-common as if a statutory
partition had taken place among all the coparceners. Section 4
of the said Act provides that all members of an undivided
Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law holding any
coparcenary property on the day the Act comes into force shall
be deemed to hold it as tenants-in-common, as if a partition
had taken place among all the members of that undivided
Hindu family. Therefore, on the day on which the Hindu
Succession Amending Act No.35/2005 came into force, there
was no coparcenary property existing within that State of
Kerala consequent to the passing of Act 30/1976."
Therefore, Section 6 has no application in the
instant case.
Resultantly, the Review Petition is liable to be
dismissed and I do so.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
