Kerala High Court
Valsala Vijayakumar vs Kochu Tresa on 24 March, 2025
2025:KER:24323
WP(C)No. 32764 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32764 OF 2015
PETITIONER :
VALSALA VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.K P VIJAYAKUMAR, R/A, 1717,COMBOURNE CIRCLE, HIGH
GATE, DAIN FERN GOLF ESTATE, BOARD ACRES ROAD, FOURWAYS,
JOHANESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
10,B2, KGL MARINA MAJESTIC, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM ,
KOCHI 682018
BY ADVS. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR
SMT.DHANYA PALAN
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)(K/280/1973)
RESPONDENTS :
1 KOCHU TRESA
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O.CATHERINE LASER, R/A, 8/630, MANGOLIA BHAVAN,
ATTINKUZHI, KAZHAKOOTAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 DR GABRIEL MAR GREGORIOUS METRAPOLITA BISHOP
MALANKARA ORTHODOX SURIYANI SABHE, ORTHODOX CHURCH
CENTRE, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695011
3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,KERALA
4 SUB INSPECTOR OF P OLICE
KAZHAKKOTTAM POLICE SATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
5 DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
2025:KER:24323
WP(C)No. 32764 of 2015
2
6 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM 695043
7 VILLAGE OFFICER
PANGAPPARA VILLAGE,KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695017
8 SUB REGISTRAR
KAZHAKKUTTAM P O, KAZHAKKUTTAM ,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA 695582
9 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
LMS COMPOUND , PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034
10 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV R.T.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24323
WP(C)No. 32764 of 2015
3
C.R.
P.M. MANOJ, J
------------------
WP(C) No. 32764 of 2015
----------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is preferred by third persons seeking issuance
of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgment and decree in
O.S. No.247/2013 of the First Additional Sub Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. The question to be answered in the writ
petition is whether the jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked
to set aside the judgment on the alleged grounds of fraud and
impersonation.
2. The writ petition is preferred challenging the judgment and
decree dated 05.11.2014 in O.S. No.247 of 2013 of the First
Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner and her
husband had been residing with their family in South Africa for 17
years at the time of filing the writ petition. She purchased 10.80
Ares of property in Old Survey No.1821/1 and Re-survey No.274/10
of Pangappara Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. This property was
assigned to her and her husband by one P.Y. Thomas as per Ext.P1
2025:KER:24323
dated 17.07.2006. Sri.P.Y. Thomas obtained the property from the
deceased Bishop of Malankara Orthodox Suriyani Sabha,
Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa Thirumeni as per Ext.P2 dated
13.10.1983. The Bishop obtained the property from one Mr.Paul
Thomas as per Ext.P3 dated 30.04.1980.
3. After the purchase of the property as per Ext.P1 the property
tax and the encumbrance certificates were handed over by the
assigner to the petitioner and her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner
constructed a compound wall to secure the property, and they
remained in South Africa as her husband was employed in Botswana,
and the petitioners visited the property occasionally. Later, they
were informed by a friend of her husband that a news item relating
to their property was published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated
15.12.2010. The news item was that the first respondent had got
someone to impersonate the deceased Bishop, and the present
Bishop, Dr.Grabriel Mar Gregorius Metrapolita (2nd respondent), had
filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent - DGP.
4. The complaint is with respect to the creation of the Ext.P7
document dated 31.03.2010, which is stated to be created by the
first respondent for transferring the land owned by the petitioner as
2025:KER:24323
it is directly assigned by the assigner in Ext.P2, i.e. Late Bishop
Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa. The crucial aspect is that
Bishop Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa passed away on
23.07.1999. Under such circumstances, the police started an
investigation and Ext.P8 Final Report was filed by the Sub Inspector
of Police, Kazhakkoottam, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Attingal, on 10.07.2011 as CC No. 589/2011. In the Final
Report the first respondent herein is the second accused. Later she
was released on bail.
5. The officers involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction
were also arrayed as witnesses in the FIR, and a Vigilance Inquiry
was ordered against those officers. As a result, the 5th respondent
Director General of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau obtained
sanction from the Government to proceed against the Government
Officials.
6. While all these proceedings were in motion, the 1 st
respondent approached the Sub Court and filed a Suit as OS
No.247/2013 wherein the Late Bishop was the second defendant and
the predecessor in interest of the Bishop was the first defendant. As
there was no appearance on the part of the defendant, an ex parte
2025:KER:24323
order was passed against the defendants therein on 05.11.2024,
especially against the 2nd defendant, Bishop, who passed away on
23.07.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the Suit was filed
suppressing all the facts of initiation and pendency of criminal
proceedings against the plaintiff/ 1st respondent herein as stated
above.
7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and her husband obtained
an order from the jurisdictional RDO as per Ext.P13 for cancelling the
mutation effected in the name of the 1st respondent as per Ext.P13
dated 22.12.2013 on the basis of the complaint preferred by
petitioner and her husband. Ext.P10 judgment was obtained
concealing even these facts. The Tax receipts produced along with
the writ petition show that the petitioner and her husband were
paying the tax between 2011 and 2015. But the possession
certificates issued on 19.04.2012 and 03.01.2013 will go to show
that the petitioner and her husband were in possession of the
property even at the time of issuance of Ext.P10 judgment. Even
the encumbrance certificate produced along with the writ petition
also shows that the petitioner and husband were in possession from
2006. However, an entry is evident in one of the encumbrance
2025:KER:24323
st
certificates that the 1 respondent obtained the property with effect
from 01.03.2010 from the deceased Bishop.
8. In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner has
produced the FIR filed before the Court of Enquiry Commission and
Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P14 and the order of
rejection of Bail Application of the 1 st accused as per Exts.P15 and
16. Finally, by Ext.P16 C, the 1st respondent was released on bail.
The petitioner has also produced the latest extracts of the BTR,
possession certificate and encumbrance certificate. In the latest
encumbrance certificate, which is produced as Ext.P24, it is shown
that after Ext.P1 transaction, another transaction was recorded in
the year 2010 in the light of Ext.P7. Later a further entry was made
in the year 2012 whereby entire property has been transferred to the
petitioner herein as per Ext.P4.
9. The petitioner has also produced certain documents such as
Ext.P25, a letter stated to be issued by the deceased Bishop to the
Joint Director in the year 2009 whereby he has entrusted one Joseph
for carrying out survey activities. This person is one of the accused
in the criminal case and by Ext.P26(a), P26(b) and P26(c) death
certificates and Ext.P27 election identity cards allegedly forged by
2025:KER:24323
st
the 1 respondent and her allies. Later, during the pendency of the
writ petition, the petitioner also produced additional documents such
as FIR, a charge sheet filed before the Court of Enquiry Commission
and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram, latest tax
receipts, possession certificate, thandaper and the encumbrance
certificate of the year 2019.
10. In the meanwhile, in the year 2016 the 1st respondent
preferred a counter affidavit whereby she tried to establish that she
had purchased the property from one Geevarghese Mardiascoras
Episcopa as per Ext.R1(a) sale deed (Ext.P7 in the writ petition) who
obtained the sale deed from one Paul Thomas in the year 1980, i.e.
Ext.P3 in the writ petition. She further contended that she was in
absolute possession and enjoyment and effected mutation, paid land
tax, and obtained thandaper Number 25623 of Pangappara Village.
11. It is further stated that one P.Y. Thomas, the assignor to
the petitioner, had purchased the same property as per sale deed
number 2583/1983, (i.e. Ext.P2 in the writ petition). In that regard,
she had preferred a complaint before the Police as well as revenue
authorities against that.
2025:KER:24323
12. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that her
vendor Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa had never executed
Ext.R1(b), i.e. Ext.P2 in favour of Sri.P.Y. Thomas. The signature
available in Ext.R1(b) document will show that one Dioscorus had
subscribed to the signature of her vendor and executed the said
document. She also stated that the document evidenced that the
Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa, the head of the Malankara
Orthodox Suriyani Sabha, Thiruvananthapuram was for some
reasons stripped from the title and later Mar Dioscorus of Malankara
Orthodox Syrian Church was succeeded by Geevarghese
Mardiascoras Episcopa and the former assumed that the 30 cents of
property in Re-survey No.274/9 of Pangappara Village belonged to
the Sabha. However, in fact, Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa
who was the owner and in possession of the property in his individual
capacity, may have sold the property to P.Y. Thomas. But in reality
the Mar Discorous had no title or possession over the property.
Thereby Sri.P.Y. Thomas cannot claim title over the property. On such
assumption, it is stated that Sale deed No.2582/1983 is a void
document or, for that matter, fraudulently executed.
2025:KER:24323
13. It is further stated, under the afore circumstances, as an
abundant caution, she had preferred O.S. No.247/2013 before the
Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby P.Y. Thomas and her
vendor Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopapa were defendants 1
and 2, respectively. Despite receipt of the summons, they never
chose to appear before the Court. Accordingly, on 05.11.2014, the
suit was decreed, declaring that sale deed No.2582/1983 of
Kazhakkoottam Registrar Office is null and void, which is produced
as Ext.R1(c). This is the order impugned in this writ petition. On
the strength of the said judgment, as the respondents had not
challenged the same, the sale deed no.2582/1983 is non-existent.
14. It is also stated that prior to the institution of the suit, the
first respondent has served notice on various office bearers of the
Malankara Syrian Orthodox Badrasanam. Thereby sought to
withdraw the allegations levelled against her to the effect that she
had forged the identity cards and photo of the Metrapolita and
executed the document by impersonation. Since such allegations
are false and baseless, they required them to make a press release
of the actual facts and appealed to them to withdraw the criminal
case against her. In the said counter affidavit, she also explained
2025:KER:24323
the history of the Sabha and tried to establish that Geevarghese Mar
Diascoras Episcopa had left the Sabha in 1982 and purchased the
property in his personal capacity and he had every right to sell the
property. Therefore, the Metrapolita Geevarghese Mar Diascoras
Episcopa have no authority to execute the document in favour of
Sri.P.Y. Thomas as per deed No.2582/1983. She also stated by
producing the death certificate that the Metrapolita Geevarghese
Mardiascoras Episcopa passed away on 23.07.1999. She had
purchased the property from Metrapolita Geevarghese Mardiascoras
Episcopa.
15. On the basis of these arguments, the sale deed executed
between the petitioner and her assigner is illegal, and it is an attempt
to grab her property, resorting to certain false allegations and
preferring false complaints against her. The petitioner has
approached this Court by swearing false averments with distorted
facts and seeking to dismiss the writ petition with costs to the 1 st
respondent.
16. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent was
refuted by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit, which stated that
the sale deed No.1029/2010, i.e. Ext.P7/R1(a), is a forged
2025:KER:24323
document. The said document is created by impersonating late
Bishop Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa. This fact is evident
from the complaint preferred by the present Bishop before the 3 rd
respondent State Police Chief and the Ext.P8 Final Report. The 1 st
respondent is the second accused in that case. A parallel enquiry was
conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department against
the Government Officials. An FIR was filed vide FIR No.VC
03/2016/SRT dated 13.06.2016 before the Court of Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance,Thiruvananthapuram. In
the original FIR, one Karunakaran S/o.Cheriyan Nadar, was the first
accused, and Kochuthresia, the 1st respondent herein, is the second
accused. Joseph alias Monvila Joseph is the third accused. She is
attempting to confuse by using the names in various manner by
changing the spelling and spacing between the words in the name of
the Bishop. That amounts to fraud and perjury. The name, which is
differently spelt in the counter affidavit, is one and the same person
whose death certificate is produced by the 1st respondent as per
Ext.R1(e). The same death certificate is produced by the petitioner
as well as the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P26 series and Ext.R2(c)
respectively.
2025:KER:24323
17. Police, as well as the Revenue Authorities, conducted
enquiries with respect to the impugned title deed. On the basis of
the same, the 1st respondent claims title over the petitioner's
property. Finally, RDO has cancelled the mutation in the name of the
1st accused and mutated back to P.Y. Thomas, the original assignee
to the petitioner, and simultaneously mutated in the name of the
petitioner and her husband, who were the then original co-owners.
Later, in year 2012, the entire property was conveyed to the name
of the petitioner as per Ext.P4.
18. The petitioner also explains the sequence of events of the
transfer of property from Paul Thomas in the year 1980 to the late
Bishop. Then Late Bishop to P.Y. Thomas in the year 1983. Thereafter
P.Y. Thomas, in the year 2006, to the petitioner and her husband. In
the year 2010, the first accused fraudulently created a deed showing
that the property was transferred to her name by the late Bishop.
The same happened by impersonation of Late Geevarghese
Mardiascoras Episcopa by Mr.Karunakaran, the accused in Crime
874/10 in CC 587/2011. He registered a sale deed No.1029/10
presenting the fake election ID card to the Sub Registrar,
Kazhakkuttam in favour of the 1st respondent. Thereafter the 1st
2025:KER:24323
respondent, with the fake and fraudulently registered document and
faked encumbrance certificate, managed to mutate the property in
her favour and obtained thandaper No.25623, and paid property tax
for the year 2010-11.
19. Knowing the aforementioned fraud, the thandaper
No.25623 was cancelled on the basis of the complaint preferred by
the petitioner and her husband as per Ext.P13. Accordingly, new
thandaper No.27138 was assigned in the name of K.P.Vijayakumar
and Valsala Vijayakumar, the husband and wife. Later by Ext.P4, the
portion of the husband was transferred to the name of the wife, who
is the petitioner herein and obtained new TP No.28246.
20. The contention raised by the 1st respondent that P.Y.
Thomas has approached the police raising certain false complaints
was also refuted. In fact, it was the present Bishop who had raised
the complaint before the then Director General of Police as is evident
from Ext.P5. Neither P.Y.Thomas nor the petitioner and her husband
ever approached the Police. The petitioner came to know about the
fraudulent transaction from the information given on the news item
published in the vernacular newspaper published in the locality while
the petitioner's husband was in visit to Kerala. The news items
2025:KER:24323
published on those days were produced along with the writ petition.
Ext.P7 sale deed was created by affixing the photographs of a
fraudster Karunakaran and creating a letter to the resurvey
superintendent, i.e. Ext.P25. The signatures available in Ext.P7 and
Ext.P25 appear to be grossly different.
21. The petitioner also elucidated the history of the Sabha
stating that the Thiruvananthapuram Diocese of Malankara Orthodox
Syrian Sabha was commissioned on 01.01.1979. Late Bishop
Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa was the first
Episcopa/Metrapolita from its inception on 01.01.1979, and he was
in the capacity till 1999. On 23.07.1999, he passed away. No other
person headed the Sabha with a similar name to that of the Late
Bishop, as confirmed by the present Bishop, who preferred the
complaint before the Police.
22. It is also contended in the reply affidavit that 1st
respondent's version with respect to service of notice is a mere
impossibility as he is living in Botswana and he became a foreign
citizen and the address provided in the suit with respect to the Bishop
is also not in existence. Without providing sufficient details and
suppressing certain material facts, the 1st respondent managed to
2025:KER:24323
obtain the impugned Ext.P7 judgment. It is also stated that, the 1st
respondent, who is an ordinary daily worker, could not have
committed such fraud without the help of some able brains who are
behind the curtain. In the enquiry, those persons came to light, and
they are facing prosecution. The petitioner was never made a party
to the suit before the Sub Court. On this background the counter
affidavit preferred by the 1st respondent is sought to be rejected.
23. Later, in the year 2016, the 2nd respondent who had
preferred a complaint for the first time before the police had
preferred a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent is straight away
supporting the contentions raised in the writ petition while
meticulously refuting the contentions raised in the counter affidavit
filed by the first respondent.
24. For that purpose, the 2nd respondent has brought some
facts with respect to the Sabha and also the appointment of the first
Bishop, etc. The counter affidavit also provides the name of the
Bishops till 2016 and tried to establish that no other person similar
to the name of the first Bishop i.e. Geevarghese Mardiascoras
Episcopa was in existence in Sabha. In order to prove the identity
of the first Bishop, the 2nd respondent has brought some biographical
2025:KER:24323
notes with respect to the parents, maiden name, his consecration
etc. upto his death on 23.07.1999 and the counter affidavit denies
the story rendered by the 1st respondent that the first Bishop once
left the church in 1982. He also tried to explain the way the first
accused tried to confuse the court by spelling the name of late
Geevarghese Mardiascoras Episcopa in various documents in
Malayalam and English. He also reiterated the stand of the petitioner
that the 1st respondent is bringing distorted contention and is trying
to project that two different persons were in existence with similar
names, and both of them were the Bishops of the Malankara
Orthodox Syrian Church. In order to establish that the 2 nd
respondent has produced literature marked as Ext.R2(i) and also
explained the history of the transaction of the property in survey
Number 182/1/1 and resurvey No.272/10 of Pangappara Village,
Thiruvananthapurm Taluk which is in consonance with the contention
raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and also stated with
respect to the criminal case and filing of charge sheet as well as the
proceedings under the Vigilance Department etc.
25. On the strength of the contentions raised in the writ petition
as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent the
2025:KER:24323
petitioner seeks to issue writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 judgment
of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
26. I have heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, Senior Counsel, instructed
by Adv.P.N. Sivasankar, Adv.J. Harikumar for the 2nd respondent and
Sri.Binoy Davis, learned Government Pleader. However, there was
no appearance for the 1st respondent. Initially a Vakalath was filed
on behalf of the 1st respondent and a counter affidavit was filed.
Later, the counsel has relinquished his vakalath. A new counsel was
engaged by the 1st respondent. However, he has also relinquished
the vakalat. Later, notice was sent to the 1st respondent by a special
messenger that was returned, reporting that the addressee was not
in place. In order to complete the service, petitioner was permitted
to take out notice by paper publication to the 1 st respondent.
Accordingly, paper publication was effected and produced the
evidence in the paper book. Thereafter, on multiple occasions, the
matter was posted before this Court; however, there was no
response from the 1st respondent. Under the said circumstances, I
decided to hear the matter and dispose of it finally.
27. Having considered the contentions raised across the Bar, it
appears that this is a matter of substantial question of law, whether
2025:KER:24323
this Court can invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash a
judgment of the trial court in an Original Suit in the case of a
challenge raised by a third person to the said suit.
28. The said challenge is raised on the background of the
alleged fraud raised in the aforementioned paragraphs. A criminal
case registered in that case is under trial before the competent court
having jurisdiction. Unless and until final verdict comes out in that
case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that there is a
substantial fraud as alleged in the writ petition.
29. On the basis of the alleged fraud, the learned Senior
Counsel tried to substantiate that the judgment obtained by the 1 st
respondent is liable to be interfered with by invoking the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions,
learned Senior Counsel brought to my attention the following
decisions:
"Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and others [AIR 2006 SC
3028], Vishal Garg and Others v. Union of India and Others
[2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5343], P. Subramani v. A.Periyasamy
[2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3132], The Koushik Mutually Aided Co-
2025:KER:24323
operative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum and Another
[2023 SCC OnLine SC 1662] and Reghu B and Another v. State
Bank of Travancore, Tvm and Another [2015 (4) KHC 270]"
30. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has argued
that this Court cannot invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 to
unsettle the impugned judgment. The learned Government Pleader
has brought to my notice the following decisions :
"Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony and Others [2014 (2) KHC 290],
Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others [2015
KHC 4152], My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society v.
B. Mahesh and Others [2022 KHC 6834] and Hardevinder Singh
v. Paramjit Singh and Others [2013 KHC 4017]"
31. In order to ascertain the capability of this Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, one of such decisions is also
considered by this Court which is as follows :
"CISF v. Santhosh Kumar Pandey [2022 KHC 7289]"
32. On analysing the aforementioned decisions, in the absence
of finality of criminal proceedings initiated against the first
respondent, this Court cannot hold a view that there is substantial
2025:KER:24323
fraud. If such a view is taken, that will affect the pending trial before
the competent court having jurisdiction. Rather, it would be
premature to jump to such a conclusion. Moreover, the writ
jurisdiction is meant for lining justice between the parties where it
cannot be done in any other forum. Moreover, where there is an
express provision available under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or
any Statute under which an appeal is maintainable bypassing the
appellate jurisdiction, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Only in
the absence of a statutory appeal alone, writ jurisdiction can be
invoked under Article 226. Here in the case on hand, a specific
provision under CPC is available. Challenging the impugned
judgment, the argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner, being
a third party, cannot directly challenge the said judgment. Moreover,
according to the petitioner, the writ petition is preferred for
expeditious disposal by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction.
33. Unfortunately, in the light of judgments Jacky,Radhey
Shyam , My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society and
Hardevinder Singh supra, I cannot hold a different view. The
remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the trial court to
get herself impleaded in the party array, and thereafter, they can
2025:KER:24323
approach the same court for reviewing the judgment which is stated
to be obtained by fraud. Whereas the apprehension voiced by the
petitioner is with respect to the delay in approaching the said trial
court or other appellate forum and also the delay that would take in
the final disposal. There is no point in such apprehension as the
period of delay in approaching the appropriate forum can be
condoned in the light that the writ petition is preferred immediately
on the knowledge of the impugned judgment. Therefore, the period
in which the writ petition was pending before this Court can be
excluded for the application of limitation prescribed under the
Limitation Act. Hence, the question with respect to invoking the
jurisdiction of Article 226 against the impugned judgment is
answered in negative.
Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
ttb
2025:KER:24323
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32764/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1:-TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING DOC NO
P2:-TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING DOC NO
P3:-TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING DOC NO
P4:-TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO 4069/2012
P5;-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF TE BISHOP DTD
13/12/2010
P6:_TRUE COPIES OF NEWS ITEMS BETWEEN
DECEMBER 2010 AND MARCH 2011
P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING DOC NO
P8:-TRUE COPY OF FIR NO 874/2010 & CHARGE
SHEET
P9:-TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD 10/2/2015
P10:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDL
SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OS NO
247/2013 DTD 5/11/2014
P11:-TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS DTD
14/7/2006,19/4/2012,3/1/2013,24/8/2013,19/5/2
014, 20/10/2015 POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD
19/4/2012 & 3/1/2013 , ABSTRAACT OF THANDAPER
REGISTER,ENCUMBARANCE CERTIFICATE DTD
15/12/10,20/1/13,21/10/15
P12:-TRUE COPIES OF LETTERS DTD
10/6/2010,27/10/2011,19/12/2011
P13:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO DTD
23/12/2011
