Kerala High Court
K.Sandhya vs K.K.Sivakumar on 3 November, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
1
2025:KER:81531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
RFA NO. 92 OF 2019 (J)
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2018 IN OS NO.70
OF 2013 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE (ADDITIONAL),PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 K.SANDHYA,
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.BABUPRASAD, SREEPRASADAM VEEDU,
VADAKKANTHARA DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 SUJITHRA,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.S.JAYAKRISHNAN, JAYASREE VEEDU,
KARANAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA POST,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH
SRI.ROHIT NANDAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 K.K.SIVAKUMAR,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O THE LATE K.S.KRISHNAN, SIVA VEEDU,
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2
2025:KER:81531
THARAKAR LANE, KIZHAKUMPURAM,
EANNAKOTTIL STREET, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678001.
2 V.M.VIJAYALAKSHMI,
AGED 71 YEARS
W/O.THE LATE K.S.KRISHNAN, SIVA VEEDU,
THARAKAR LANE, KIZHAKUMPURAM,
EANNAKOTTIL STREET, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678001.
3 SAJINI,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
NEAR VALAMPIRI GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
KARNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA,
VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678012.
4 SUNITHA,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.K.SETHUMADHAVAN, ASWATHY,
KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA,
PALAKKAD, PIN- 678012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN FOR R1, R2 & R4
SHRI.MOHAN C.MENON FOR R3
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.) FOR R1, R2 & R4
SRI.SABU GEORGE FOR R1, R2 & R4
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN FOR R1, R2 & R4
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
25.10.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.320/2019, THE COURT ON 03.11.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
3
2025:KER:81531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
RFA NO. 320 OF 2019
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2018 IN OS NO.70
OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.
APPELLANT/3RD DEFENDANT:
K.SAJINI
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. BALAKRISHNAN, NEAR VALAMBIRI GANAPATHI
TEMPLE, KARNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA,
PALAKKAD-678012.
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAN C.MENON
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 AND DEFENDANTS 1,2 AND 4:
1 K.SANDHYA
AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. BABU PRASAD, SREEPRASADAM,
VADAKKANTHARA DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678012.
2 K. SUJITHRA
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. S. JAYAKRISHNAN, JAYASREE VEEDU,
KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678012.
3 K.K. SIVAKUMAR,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.K.S. KRISHNAN, SIVA VEEDU, THARAKAR
LANE, KIZHAKUMPURAM, EANNAKOTTIL STREET,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678012.
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
4
2025:KER:81531
4 V.M. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.K.S. KRISHNAN, SIVA VEEDU, THARAKAR
LANE, KIZHAKUMPURAM, EANNAKOTTIL STREET, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-678012,
5 SUNITHA,
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. K. SETHUMATHAVAN, ASWATHY, KARNAKI
NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH FOR R1,R2
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)FOR R3, R4
SMT.MEENA.A. FOR R1,R2
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN FOR R3, R4
SRI.K.C.KIRAN FOR R1,R2
SRI.SABU GEORGE FOR R3, R4
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER FOR R3, R4
SMT.M.R.MINI FOR R1,R2
SRI.M.DEVESH FOR R1,R2
SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH FOR R1,R2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
25.10.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.92/2019, THE COURT ON 03.11.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
5
2025:KER:81531
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A.Nos.92 & 320 OF 2019
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The suit for partition of various items of properties was
decreed only with regard to two items in the plaint A
schedule. The plaintiffs are in appeal. The third defendant
has also preferred a separate appeal challenging the said
decree.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they
are arrayed in the suit. The plaint schedule properties
originally belonged to late K.S. Krishnan, the husband of the
second defendant and the father of the plaintiffs as well as
defendants 1, 3, and 4. Krishnan died on 12.08.1994. Upon his
death, the rights over the plaint schedule properties devolved
upon the plaintiffs and the defendants. Later, on 25.11.1994,
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
Ext.A1/B1 partition deed bearing Registration No.2987/1994 of
Palakkad SRO was purportedly executed by the plaintiffs and
defendants in respect of the plaint A schedule properties.
3. It is contended by the plaintiffs that their elder
brother, the first defendant, obtained their signatures in the
said registered deed by making them believe that it was a
Power of Attorney authorising him to manage the business run
by their father. Believing him, they signed it without reading
its contents, and thereby Ext.A1 came to be registered. The
plaintiffs assert that all the plaint schedule properties
continued to remain in their joint possession and ownership
notwithstanding the creation of the said document. On
12.06.2012, when the plaintiffs demanded partition of their
shares, the first defendant declared that the properties had
already been divided under a partition deed. Upon enquiry, it
was revealed that the document registered as a Power of
Attorney was in fact a partition deed, which, according to the
plaintiffs, was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
4. The plaintiffs further contended that the properties
owned by late K.S. Krishnan were never actually partitioned
and that there was not even a discussion among the parties for
separation of their joint ownership or possession.
Consequently, Ext.A1 is null and void. It is also contended
that though the plaint schedule properties are worth several
crores of rupees, the share allotted to the plaintiffs under
the said document was valued at only ₹2,50,000/-, which itself
demonstrates the magnitude of the deception,
misrepresentation, and fraud perpetrated by the first
defendant.
5. The third defendant, the appellant in R.F.A. No.
320/2019, filed a written statement supporting the contentions
of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 filed separate
written statements contending that the suit is vexatious and
speculative, and that the plaintiffs intended only to harass
the first defendant. The suit was filed nearly two decades
after the execution of the registered partition deed.
According to them, Ext.A1 was executed voluntarily and with
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
full knowledge and understanding of its contents and nature,
and is therefore valid and binding on all parties. It was
further contended that except for plaint item Nos. 8 and 9,
all other properties are not partible, and that the first
defendant is agreeable for partitioning of item Nos. 8 and 9
alone. As per the partition deed, the third defendant was
allotted B schedule properties, which she subsequently sold to
the first defendant for valuable consideration. The A schedule
property was allotted to the first and second defendants, and
the second defendant (mother) later released her rights in
favour of the first defendant. Thereafter, defendants 2 and 4
also released their shares over item Nos. 8 and 9 to the first
defendant through separate registered documents. All
signatories to the deed were capable of understanding its
contents, being educated, experienced, and married
individuals, it is pleaded.
6. The evidence in the case consists of the oral
testimony of PW1 and DW1, and documentary evidence marked as
Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B22. The trial court
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the consent for execution of document
No.2987/1994 was obtained by fraud as alleged in
the plaint?
2. Whether the suit properties are available for
partition? If so, what is the quantum of shares to
be allotted to the sharers?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
court found that plaint A schedule item Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 and
11, as well as plaint B schedule properties, are not partible.
The suit was decreed only in respect of plaint A schedule item
Nos. 8 and 9, which were directed to be divided into six equal
shares. The court further held that the plaintiffs and the
third defendant are each entitled to 1/6 share, and the first
defendant is entitled to 3/6 share in those items.
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
7. We have heard Sri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior
Counsel for the plaintiffs, assisted by Smt. A. Meena; Sri
Mohan C. Menon, learned counsel for the third defendant; and
Sri P.B. Subramanyan, learned counsel for defendants 1, 2, and
4.
8. Having considered the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, and the submissions made by counsel on either
side, the question that arises for determination is
whether Ext.A1 is null and void.
9. Sri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel for the
plaintiffs, projected the following circumstances as vitiating
factors undermining the credibility of Ext.A1:
(a) That while the bereaved family members, including the
plaintiffs, were mourning the death of K.S. Krishnan, the
first defendant obtained their signatures on the document by
misrepresenting it as a Power of Attorney;
(b) That the plaintiffs reposed complete faith and
reverence in the first defendant, their elder brother,
treating him as a father figure in managing family affairs;
(c) That being women of an aristocratic family, the
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
plaintiffs were socially and traditionally placed in a
subordinate position vis-à-vis male members, thereby suffering
an inherent disadvantage in negotiating equitable terms; and
(d) That the value of assets allotted to the
first defendant is shockingly disproportionate.
10. Relying on various precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court, the learned Senior Counsel contended
that when fraud or misrepresentation goes to the very nature
or character of a deed, the document becomes void ab initio,
not merely voidable. Reliance was placed on C.V. Suresh v.
Tobin and Ors. (MANU/KE/2174/2011), N. Divakaran and Ors. v.
David Livingston and Ors. (MANU/KE/2545/2024), and
Ponnu v. Taluk Land Board (1981 KHC 392), to assert that
mere admission of execution of a document does not
constitute admission of its contents.
11. Sri Mohan C. Menon, learned counsel for the third
defendant, adopted similar arguments and relied upon Shanti
Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs Goran v. Jagan Devi (2025
KHC OnLine 6790), Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar
and Others (1968 KHC 638), and Ramathal v. K. Rajamani (Dead)
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
Through LRs (2023 KHC 6788) to support his contention
that misrepresentation as to the character of
the document would make it void.
12. In reply, Sri P.B. Subramanyan, learned counsel for
defendants 1, 2, and 4, relying on Biji Pothen v. Thankamma
John and Ors. (2012 (3) KLT 658), contended that a plea of
this nature cannot be availed by literate persons who had an
opportunity to read and understand the contents of a document.
Since the plaintiffs themselves admitted that they did not
read Ext.A1 despite having the opportunity to do so, the plea
of non est factum cannot be sustained. Referring to the cross-
examination of PW1, the learned counsel submitted that the
evidence clearly establishes that the document was executed
voluntarily and willingly, and that the present plea was
raised only to harass the first defendant.
13. Upon evaluation of the entire evidence, we find
considerable force in the submissions advanced by Sri P.B.
Subramanyan. The suit was admittedly instituted after nineteen
years of the execution of Ext.A1. In the plaint, they had
alleged that they were receiving usufructs jointly, until the
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
cause of action arose, which, if proved, would explain the
delay in raising any claim earlier. However, no evidence was
adduced to substantiate that claim. Pertinently, according to
plaintiffs, several of the scheduled properties generated
substantial annual income. Paragraph 6 of the proof affidavit
of PW1, the first plaintiff, reads as follows:
"അനനന്യായപടട്ടിക 4-)൦ നമ്പർ വഹകളട്ടിൽ നട്ടിനന്ന് ചട്ടിലവന്ന് കഴട്ടിച്ചു സുമന്യാർ കകന്യാല്ലതട്ടിൽ 10,00,000/-
രൂപയട്ടിലധട്ടികകം വരുമന്യാനമുള്ളതുമന്യാകുന..അതട്ടിനനന്യാടന്ന് നചർനകട്ടിടക്കുന "krishnanjali " എന
ഹന്യാളട്ടിനന്ന് കകന്യാല്ലതട്ടിൽ ചട്ടിലവന്ന് കഴട്ടിച്ചു 5,00,000/- രൂപ വരുമന്യാനമുള്ളതുമന്യാകുന. A പടട്ടിക 5-)൦
നമ്പർ വഹകളട്ടിൽ നട്ടിനകം കകന്യാല്ലതട്ടികല കചലവന്ന് കഴട്ടിച്ചു 3,00,000/- രൂപ വന്യാടക കട്ടിടട്ടി
വരുനതുമന്യാകുന. അനനന്യായകം B പടട്ടിക 1-)൦ നമ്പർ വഹകളട്ടിൽ നട്ടിനന്ന് രൂപ കട്ടിടട്ടിവരുനതുമന്യാകുന.
2-)൦ നമ്പർ വഹകളട്ടിൽ നട്ടിനന്ന് കകന്യാല്ലതട്ടിൽ ചട്ടിലവന്ന് കഴട്ടിച്ചു 2,00,000/- ലകകം രൂപയകം 4-)൦ നമ്പർ
വഹകളട്ടിൽ ചട്ടിലവന്ന് കഴട്ടിച്ചു കകന്യാല്ലതട്ടിൽ 1,50,000/- രൂപയകം കട്ടിടട്ടി വരുനതുമന്യാകുന. ടട്ടി
ആദന്യായങ്ങളട്ടിൽ നട്ടിനന്ന് 12.6.12 നന്ന് നശേഷകം യന്യാകതന്യാരു ആദന്യായവകം അനനന്യായകന്യാർകന്ന്
തനട്ടിടട്ടില്ലന്യാതതുമന്യാകുന. ടട്ടി ആദന്യായകം കട്ടിട്ടുവന്യാൻ അനനന്യായകന്യാർകന്ന് അർഹതയള്ളതുമന്യാകുന."
If the above allegation were true, the annual income derived
from the said properties would be nearly ₹25 lakhs, from which
each of the plaintiffs would have been entitled to at least
one-sixth share annually. There should have been some reliable
evidence, had the said contention been true.
14. In these circumstances, the institution of the suit
almost two decades after the death of late K.S. Krishnan casts
some doubt upon the bona fides of the challenge. The
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
contention that the plaintiffs, being members of an
aristocratic family, were unable to question the authority of
their elder brother while mourning their father's death also
appears misplaced. The document was executed nearly three and
a half months after the demise of K.S. Krishnan. Further, the
1st defendant was only 24 years old at that time and the 3 rd and
4th defendants, his sisters, were older to him. Hence, the
contention that he held a fatherly command over them also
seems improbable.
15. Notably, the mother (second defendant) of
the plaintiffs and the first defendant supports the case
advanced by the first defendant. She was also a signatory
to Ext.A1. The properties were originally allotted to
defendants 1 and 2, and the second defendant later transferred
her rights to the first defendant.
16. Similarly, the third defendant had also transferred
the share allotted to her under the partition deed to the
first defendant. Ext.B18 is a copy of the plaint filed by the
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
third defendant before the Subordinate Judge's Court,
Palakkad, wherein she had challenged both the partition deed
and the subsequent transfer. That suit was later withdrawn.
Certain portions of PW1's cross-examination are relevant here:
"ഈ case ൽ D3 യകടയകം എകന്റെയകം വന്യാദകം ഒനന്യാണന്ന് . ഞങ്ങൾ ഒനട്ടിചന്ന് നയന്യാജട്ടിചന്ന് ആണന്ന് നടതനതന്ന് "
"ഞങ്ങളകം സനഹന്യാദരട്ടിമന്യാരുകം അമയകം തമട്ടിൽ അനപന്യാഴകം ഇനപന്യാഴകം നല്ല ബനമന്യാണ" ന്ന്
PW1 further admitted:
"എകന്റെ ഭർതന്യാവകം 2-)൦ അനനന്യായകന്യാരട്ടിയകട ഭർതന്യാവകം പന്യാരമ്പരനമന്യായട്ടി കചവടകം 30 വർഷതട്ടിൽ
കൂടുതൽ നടതട്ടി വരുനതന്യാണന്ന്. D3 യകട ഭർതന്യാവന്ന് Balakrishnan 40 വർഷനതന്യാളകം കചവടകം
നടതട്ടി അനുഭവകം ഉള്ളതന്യാണന്ന്."
She also admitted that the first defendant had informed their
husbands about the execution of the document and that there
was no compulsion in signing it, as shown below:
"August 12 നന്ന് 1994 ൽ അതട്ടികന്റെ 2-3 മന്യാസതട്ടിനന്ന് ഉള്ളട്ടിൽ ആണന്ന് നരഖ നവണകം.
എനതട്ടികനപറട്ടി എല്ലന്യാവരുകം തമട്ടിൽ സകംസന്യാരട്ടിചതന്ന് നരഖ ഒപട്ടിടുന ദട്ടിവസകം രന്യാവട്ടികല നജഷ്ഠൻ
വട്ടിളട്ടിചതന്ന് ഭർതന്യാവട്ടികന അറട്ടിയട്ടിച്ചു. 2-)൦ അനനന്യായകന്യാരട്ടിയകട ഭർതന്യാവട്ടികനയകം അറട്ടിയട്ടിച്ചു.
ഭർതന്യാവട്ടികന്റെ സമതനതന്യാകട ആണന്ന് ഒപട്ടിടതന്ന്. അനപന്യാൾ നട്ടിങ്ങകള നട്ടിർബനട്ടിച്ചു ഒപട്ടിടട്ടിനകണ
സന്യാഹചരനകം ഉണന്യായട്ടില്ലനല്ലന്യാ ? (Q) നട്ടിർബനട്ടിചട്ടിടട്ടില്ല (a). ആധന്യാരകം വന്യായട്ടിച്ചു നനന്യാകന്യാനനന്യാ
മനസട്ടിലന്യാകന്യാനനന്യാ വല്ല തടസവകം ഉണന്യാനയന്യാ ?(Q)തടസകപടുതട്ടിയട്ടിടട്ടില്ല (a). നട്ടിങ്ങളകട പൂർണ
സമതനതന്യാകട അനല്ല ഒപട്ടിടതന്ന് ?(Q ) അകത (a )"
17. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the
plaintiffs and the third defendant had studied up to the 10 th
standard, and that their husbands were engaged in business.
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
One of the attesting witnesses to Ext.A1 is none other than
the husband of the third defendant, who has filed one of the
appeals herein.
18. From the above facts, it is reasonable to conclude
that the plaintiffs executed Ext.A1 voluntarily and with full
knowledge of its contents. Although it was argued that the
value of the properties allotted to the first defendant was
disproportionately higher, no evidence was adduced to
establish the same. Even if the properties allotted to the
first defendant were of higher value, that fact alone is
insufficient to invalidate a partition deed executed with open
eyes. It is well settled that inequality in shares is not a
ground to set aside a partition executed by all sharers
[Ratnam Chettiar v. Kuppuswami Chettiar (1975 KHC 273)].
19. This Court, in Mathu v. Cherchi (1990 (1) KLT 416),
held that pleas of the above nature should not ordinarily be
entertained by the court unless the parties are blind or
illiterate. Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or
deception must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. The
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
plaintiffs in this case have failed to establish such
allegations. Therefore, it is to be concluded that the finding
of the trial court that the plaintiffs failed prove that
Ext. A1 is void, is only to be affirmed. No other substantial
contentions were raised during the hearing.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed affirming the
judgment under challenge.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
RFA Nos.92/2019, 320/2019
2025:KER:81531
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 14.09.2023
SIGNED BY SMT. SUJITHRA, AND DULY ATTESTED BY
A NOTARY PUBLIC
