Kerala High Court
Kovval Ahamed Haji vs K. Ramananda Mallya on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:49805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 1115 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2024 IN RFA NO.168 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
-----
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RFA:
KOVVAL AHAMED HAJI,
AGED 61 YEARS,
KOVVAL HOUSE, CHETTANCHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE AND POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 671541.
BY ADV SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN RFA:
1 K. RAMANANDA MALLYA,
S/O (LATE) K. PANDURANGA MALLYA, HINDU, LANDHOLDER,
RESIDING AT TILAK MAHAL COMPOUND, MANAGUDDE, MANGALORE,
NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.304, AMARIS HEIGHTS, KHANGMET,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD, PIN - 500081.
2 K. SHESHAGIRI MALLYA,
AGED 82 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. PANDURANGA MALLYA, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2,
47/41/WEST AVENUE PUNJABI BHAG, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001.
3 K. RADHAKRISHNA MALLYA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. PANDURANGA MALLYA, RESIDING AT 474, EAST
END ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560069.
2025:KER:49805
RP NO. 1115 OF 2024 -2-
4 K. MANOHARA MALLYA,
AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. PANDURANGA MALLYA, RESIDING AT 473, EAST
END ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560069.
5 K. RAMESHA MALLYA,
S/O LATE K. PANDURANGA MALLYA, AGED 65,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.474, EAST END ROAD, 9TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE, PIN - 560069.
6 K. SANDEEPA MALLYA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O K. SHESHAGIRI MALLYA, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2,
47/41/WEST AVENUE, PUNJABI BHAG, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001.
7 ABDUL RAHIMAN @ HAIDAR HAJI,
AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O HASSAINAR MAMMUNHI, RESIDING AT CHERUMBA OF PANAYAL
VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671318.
8 FISAL,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN @ HAIDAR HAJI, RESIDING AT CHERUMBA
OF PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671318.
9 ABDUL RAHIMAN,
AGED 79 YEARS,
S/O T.B. ABDUL HAJI, RESIDING AT MUSRATH ROAD,
THALANKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, POST & DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121.
0 S.H. NOORUNISSA,
AGED 67 YEARS,
W/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT MUSRATH ROAD, THALANKARA
VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, POST & DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121.
11 NOORISHA SHANAWAS,
AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT MUSRATH ROAD,
THALANKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, POST & DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121.
2025:KER:49805
RP NO. 1115 OF 2024 -3-
12 AYISHATH MUNEER,
AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT MUSRATH ROAD,
THALANKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, POST & DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121.
13 T.H. MOHAMMAD,
AGED 83 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM HAJI, RESIDING AT KOLLAMBADI,
KASBA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, POST AND DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121.
14 K.M. ZAINUDDIN,
AGED 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOLLAMBADI, KASARAGOD KASBA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK, POST AND DISTRICT : KASARAGOD,
PIN - 671121.
15 M. ABBAS,
AGED 89 YEARS,
S/O ABDULLA, RESIDING AT KUNAIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA
VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49805
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
C.M.Application No.1 of 2024 in
R.P. No.1115 of 2024 in
R.F.A. No.168 of 2018 &
R.P. No.1115 of 2024
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks review of the judgment in
the RFA. There is a delay of 183 days in filing the
review petition.
2. Though notice was issued on the delay
petition, notices to respondents 1 to 6 and 14 were
returned with the endorsement "no such person".
Similarly, notice issued to respondents 9 to 12 were
returned with the endorsement "not known". In the light
of the above this Court proceeded to consider the
grounds of review.
3. The appeal was filed challenging the final
decree in a suit for partition. This Court had in an
earlier round of litigation (RFA 749/2012), held that
the appellant is only a building tenant. Though the
appellant challenged the judgment of this Court before
C.M.Application No.1 of 2024 in
R.P. No.1115 of 2024 in
R.F.A. No.168 of 2018 &
2025:KER:49805
the Honourable Apex Court in SLP 28841/2015, the same
was dismissed.
4. In the judgment sought to be reviewed this
Court held that the appellant being only a building
tenant, his rights will not be affected by the allotment
of shares between the sharers. The apprehension of the
appellant that he would be evicted in execution of the
final decree was specifically noticed to be misconceived
and that his interests will not be affected. Thus it was
held that the appellant is not a person affected by the
decree.
5. It is settled law that a review is not to be
a rehearing in disguise. There is no error apparent on
the face of the record warranting the review petition to
be entertained.
In the light of the above, I do not consider it
necessary to keep the review petition pending for non-
C.M.Application No.1 of 2024 in
R.P. No.1115 of 2024 in
R.F.A. No.168 of 2018 &
2025:KER:49805
service of notice on the respondents as noticed first
above. The affidavit filed in supported of the delay
condonation application shows that no proper explanation
is offered for the condonation of delay. Thus the
C.M.Application and the review petition are found to be
devoid of merit and are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
