Story Transcript
1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE- IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Present : Smt. Lilly. K., Addl. District Judge- IV. On Saturday 20th November 2021 ----------------------------------------29th Karthika 1943
I.A.4645/2014 IN O.S. No.85/1971 I.A.1147/2019 IN O.S. No.85/1971 I.A.815/2019 IN O.S. No.85/1971 I.A.4/2021 IN O.S. No.85/1971 IN O.S. No.85/1971 of Principal Sub Court,
Thiruvananthapuram (I.A.4645/14 and Suit O.S.85/1971 received by transfer to District Court as per Order dated 22.11.2017 in O.P.2520/2017 of the Hon’ble High Court) I.A. 4645/2014 in O.S. 85/1971 Petition filed u/s 151 of Civil Procedure Code Petitioner and 1. Additional Petitioners 2 to 7 :-
Muhammed Abdul Khader (Died) S/o Abdul Rahman Kunju, aged 82 years, residing at Kizhakkevila, Press Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695311 .
2
2.
Razeena Fazil, aged 53 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Flat No. 310, Block C, Nandini Gardens, West Fort, Fort.P.O Thiruvananthapuram-695023
3.
Saleena Ansari, aged 52 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
4.
Raheena Lalu, aged 42 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at TC.25/3355(CRRA-160) Chirakkulam Road, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
5.
Aji M, aged 40 years, S/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
6
Biji Manoj, aged 30 years. D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Ayroor, Varkala.
3
7
Shaji.M, aged 38 aged, S/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
(By Adv. N.S. Nair ) (Additional petitioners 2
to 7 were impleaded as LRS of deceased 1 st
petitioner as per order in IA.1975/16 dated 12/04/2017).
Respondent/ 1. Additional respondents 2 to 58:-
Adv. T.K. Thomas, (Died) Receiver in OS.85/1971, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695032
2.
Tahsildar (Additional), Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
3.
Mr.Thomas K.C & Mrs. Leelamma Thomas, TC 14/788-1, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
4
4.
Jaya Mohan, T.C.14/788-10, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
5.
Santhana Raj, T.C.14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O,
6.
George Varghese, T.C.14/788-13, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
7.
Vindhya, T.C.14/788-14, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
8.
Anish Raj, T.C.14/788-16, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
5
9.
Chandrasekhara Pillai, T.C.14/788-17, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
10. K.K.Nair and Mrs. Sandhya Nair, T.C.14/788-18, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
11. Prameela Devi, T.C.14/788-19, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
12. Jany George & Mrs. Donny George, TC 14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
6
13. Aniyan Kunju, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
14. Elsy Praveen, TC 14/788-24, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
15 P.A.Mohammed, TC 14/788-25, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
16
Ananda Krishnan, TC 14/788-28, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
7
17
Thomas Paul, TC 14/788-28, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
18 Pothen K.P & Jerry K. Philip, TC 14/788-3, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
19 Pradeep, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
20 Dr. Sen Varghese, TC.14/788-31, TC 14/788-31, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
8
21 Ebrahimkutty P.P, TC 14/788-4, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O
22
Anitha Kuruvila, TC 14/788-5, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O,
23
Anil Krishnankutty, TC 14/788-6, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
24
Rajesh Viswanathan, TC 14/788-7, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
25
Anitha Alphonsa, TC 14/788-9, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O
9
26
Balu, S/o Subramanian, Director, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
27
Nisamudheen, S/o Late Shamsudheen, Nisam Manzil, Thottarakiri, Murukumpuzha.P.O,
28 S.R. Roy, Managing Director, Confident Group, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O,
(Additional Respondents 2 to 28 were impleaded as per order in IA 4645/14 dated 12.02.2016) 29 Sreevardhan, S/o Chnadran TC 30/1377, VV Road, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
30 Krishnan Nair, S/o Balakrishna Pillai, TC 14/663, Sreerangam House Pothujanam Lane, Chennilode, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
10
31 Chakrapani, S/o Kochukrishnan, Sreesylam, Kallumoodu, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
32 Sambasivan S/o Karunakaran, TC15/299, Guruiyothi Pettah Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
33 Vasudevan S/O Raghavan, TC 30/328, Aradhana, NSS Karayogam Road, Petah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
34 Deepa, D/o Vijayakumari, Souparnika, Thekkumoodu Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
35 Paulose, S/o Nallathampi, TC 16/7745, Janchy Bhavan, Kumarapuram. Thiruvananthapuram
36 Rudrani Amma, D/o Rukmini Amma, Kesavavilasam, Thekkummodu Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
11
37 Rajan, S/o Pachan TC 30/1974, Mudayur House, Anayara, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
38 Sainul Arifeen S/o Mohammed Ali, TC 14/1774, Rajana, Ayyankali Road, Kannamoola Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
39 Prabhakaran, S/o Neelakantan, TC 30/1063, Thoppil House, Pallimukku, Pettah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
40 Avaneethranathan, S/o Ayyappan Pillai, Thengumpalli House, Kottukal Village, Neyyattinkara
41 Salim, S/o Vasu, Mannanvilakom House, Near Anayara Pump House, Anayara, Pettah Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
12
42 Vijayan, S/o Kolappa Pillai, TC 10/1184, Charuvila Veedu, St.George Lane, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
43 Mohanan Chettiyar S/o Janardhanan Chettyar, TC 76/1799, Anayara, Pettah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
44 Janardhanan Chettiyar, S/o Chellappan Chettiyar, TC 76/69, Chaithanya, Near LP School, Anayara, Pettah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
45 Molukutty George, S/o George, T.C.26/2150, Lilly Lal House, Statue Road, Thiruvananthapuram.
46 Sasikala, D/o Saradha Amma, TC 76/501, Nikkil House, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
13
47 Mohandas, S/o Kunju Krishnan, PKLR, Parakudy Lane, Pulari House, Chakkai, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
48 Sasidharan, S/o Ponnan, Kadakampally Thoppil Veedu, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
49 Sethu Nathan, S/o Ponnan, T.77/1168, Viswanatha Bhavan, SN Nagar, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
50 K.Padmakumar, TC 4/135, Prasanthil, Ambala Nagar, Kowdiar.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
51 Georgekutty Thomas, S/o Cheriyan Thomas, TC 26/2150, Lilly Lal, Stature Road, Opp: Hotel Mauriya, Thiruvananthapuram.
14
Krishnan Nair (R52) (deleted) S/o Balakrishna Pillai, TC 14/663, Sreerangam House Pothujanam Lane, Chennilode, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
52 Jansi @ Janet (R53) D/o Chellamma, Jansi Bhavan, Chettikunnu, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
53 Rajendran, S/o Ramakrishnan (R54) Thoppil Lane, Pedikkattu Muri, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
54 Chacko, S/o Joseph (R55) Mezhkkattu Veedu, Kilikunnu, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram..
55 Gopi S/o Pachan (R56) Thekkumkara Puthen Veedu, Mariyakkattukonam, Kizhakkum Bhagam, Kottarakkara.
15
56 Premchand R.Nair (R57) S/o Late K.P.Ramachandran Nair, TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacadu, Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
57 Rama B.Nair (R58) D/o Late K.P.Ramachandran Nair, TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacadu, Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
58 Mohan Chand R Nair (R59) S/o late K.P. Ramachandran Nair, TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacuad, Thycaud.P.O _________________________________
60 Thomas K.C (deleted) (R60) S/o Leelamma Thomas, TC 14/788-1, Chettikunnu, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
16
61 Jaya Mohan, (deleted) (R61) T.C.14/788-10, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O,
62 Santhana Raj, (deleted) (R62) T.C.14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O
63 George Varghese, (deleted) (R63) T.C.14/788-13, Chettikunnu, Kumarapuram.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
64 Nizam, (deleted) (R64) S/o Shamsudheen Lakha, Indian Oil, Vailoor, Kottarakkiri, Kurukkumpuzha Post 65 Mohammed, (deleted) (R65) ITL Tours and Travels, Pazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram
(Addl. Respondents 29 to 65 were impleaded as per order in order sheet in IA 4645/2014 dated 27.02.2016) (Additional Respondents 52,60 to 65 were removed from the party
array as per order in IA 4645/2014 dated
31.03.2016 and original R53 to R59 renumbers as R52 to R58)
17
(By Adv. Sreekumar for R3 and R.19 ) (By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan for R4, R9, R10, R11, R15, R16, R18 and R20) (By Adv. Vinod Kumar K for R 13 and R 47) (By Adv. K Ajan for R14) (By Adv. V.Suresh R17) (By Adv. M Unnikrishnan for R 24) (By Adv. Ajithakumari for R 27) (By Adv. D.O Sakunthala Devi for R29) (By Adv. V.Bahuleyan for R30, R38, R40, R43, R48) (By Adv. Kowdiar S.Mohan Das for R34) (By Adv. Adv.G.S.Sanal Kumar for R41 and R53) (By Adv. Kunjukrishnan Potti for R26,R42,R44, R56 to R58) (By Adv. V.Balachandran Nair for R46) (By Adv. Anandakuttan for R49) (By Adv. Vinod Kumar.S for R31)
(others remained exparte) I.A. 815/2019 in O.S. 85/1971 Petition filed under order XL Rule IR/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Petitioner
:-
1.
Rukkiya Beevi, D/o Abdul Rehman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695003. (By Adv. S.Shibukumar)
Respondents 1 to 10 and Additional Respondents
1.
Moli George, W/o George Thomas, Lillylal, T.C.No. 26/2150, Statue Road, GPO, Thiruvananthapuram.
18
2.
Rudrani Amma, D/o Rukmini Amma, Kesavavilasam, Thekkummodu Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
3.
V. Deepa, D/o Vijayakumari, Souparnika, Thekkumoodu Village, Thiruvananthapuram
4.
Muhammed Fathima (Died) D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
5.
Adv. T.K.Thomas, (Died) Receiver, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695032
6.
Salma Beevi (Died) S/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
19
7.
Sainaba Beevi (Died), D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
8.
Muhammed Abdul Khader (Died), S/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
9.
Nissar Muhammed (Died) S/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
10.
Suhara Beevi (Died), D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
11
Tahsildar (Additional), Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
20
12
Thomas K.C & Leelamma Thomas, TC 14/788-1, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O,
13
Jaya Mohan, T.C.14/788-10, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
14
Santhana Raj, T.C.14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram. Medical College.P.O,
15
Mr.George Varghese, T.C.14/788-13, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
21
16
Vindhya, T.C.14/788-14, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
17
Anish Raj, T.C.14/788-16, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
18
Chandrasekhara Pillai, T.C.14/788-17, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O
19
K.K.Nair and Sandhya Nair, T.C.14/788-18, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
22
20
Prameela Devi, T.C.14/788-19, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
21
Jany George & Mrs. Donny George, TC 14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
22
Aniyan Kunju, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
23
Elsy Praveen, TC 14/788-24, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
23
24
P.A.Mohammed, TC 14/788-25, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
25
Ananda Krishnan, TC 14/788-28, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
26
Thomas Paul, TC 14/788-28, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
27
Pothen K.P & Jerry K. Philip, TC 14/788-3, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
24
28
Pradeep, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
29
Dr. Sen Varghese, TC.14/788-31, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
30
Ebrahimkutty P.P, TC 14/788-4, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
31
Anitha Kuruvila, TC 14/788-5, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
25
32
Anil Krishnankutty, TC 14/788-6, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
33
Rajesh Viswanathan, TC 14/788-7, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
34
Anitha Alphonse, TC 14/788-9, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
35
Subramanian, Director, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
26
36
Nisamudheen, S/o Late Shamsudheen, Nisam Manzil, Thottarakiri, Murukumpuzha.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
37
S.R. Roy, Managing Director, Confident Group, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
38
Sreevardhan, S/o Chennan, TC 30/1377, V.V.Road, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
39
Krishnan Nair, S/o Balakrishna Pillai, TC 14/663, Sreerangam House Pothujanam Lane, Chennilode, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
40
Chakrapani, S/o Kochukrishnan, Sreesylam, Kallumoodu, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
27
41
Sambasivan S/o Karunakaran, TC15/299,Guruiyothi Pettah Post, Thiruvananthapuram
42
Vasudevan S/O Raghavan, TC 30/328, Aradhana, NSS Karayogam Road, Petah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
43
Paulose, S/o Nallathampi, TC 16/7745, Janchy Bhavan, Kumarapuram. Thiruvananthapuram
44
Rajan, S/o Pachan TC 30/1974, Mudayur House, Anayara, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
45
Sainul Arifeen S/o Mohammed Ali, TC 14/1774, Rajana, Ayyankali Road, Kannamoola Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
46
Prabhakaran, S/o Neelakantan, TC 30/1063, Thoppil House, Pallimukku, Pettah.P.O
28
47
Avaneethranathan, S/o Ayyappan Pillai, Thengumpalli House, Kottukal Village, Neyyattinkara
48
Salim, S/o Vasu, Mannanvilakom House, Near Anayara Pump House, Anayara, Pettah Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
49
Vijayan, S/o Kolappa Pillai, TC 10/1184, Charuvila Veedu, St.George Lane, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
50
Mohanan Chettiyar S/o Janardhanan Chettyar, TC 76/1799, Anayara, Pettah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
51
Janardhanan Chettiyar, S/o Chellappan Chettiyar, TC 76/69, Chaithanya, Near LP School, Anayara.
29
52
Sasikala, D/o Saradha Amma, TC 76/501, Nikkil House, Anayara, Pettah.
53
Mohandas, S/o Kunju Krishnan, PKLR, Parakudy Lane, Pulari House, Chakkai, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
54
Sasidharan, S/o Ponnan, Kadakampally Thoppil Veetil, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
55
Sethu Nathan, S/o Ponnan, T.77/1168, Viswanatha Bhavan, SN Nagar, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
56
K.Padmakumar, TC 4/135, Prasanthil, Ambala Nagar, Kowdiar.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
30
57
Georgekutty Thomas, S/o Cheriyan Thomas, TC 26/2150, Lilly Lal, Stature Road, Opp: Hotel Mauriya, Thiruvananthapuram
58
Jansi @ Janet D/o Chellamma, Jansi Bhavan, Chettikunnu, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
59
Rajendran, S/o Ramakrishnan, Thoppil Lane, Pedikkattu Muri, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
60
Chacko, S/o Joseph, Mezhkkattu Veedu, Kilikunnu, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
61
Gopi S/o Pachan, Thekkumkara Puthen Veedu, Mariyakkattukonam, Kizhakkum Bhagam, Kottarakkara.
31
62
Premchand R.Nair, S/o Late K.P.Ramachandran Nair, TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacadu, Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
63
Rama B.Nair, D/o Late K.P.Ramachandran Nair,
TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacadu Thycaud.P.O,
64
Mohan Chand R Nair, S/o late K.P. Ramachandran Nair,
TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacuad, Thycaud.P.O
65
Razeena Fazil, aged 53 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Flat No. 310, Block C, Nandini Gardens, West Fort, Fort.P.O Thiruvananthapuram-695023
32
66
Saleena Ansari, aged 52 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
67
Raheena Lalu, aged 42 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at TC.25/3355 (CRRA-160) Chirakkulam Road, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
68
Aji M, aged 40 years, S/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Tvpm-695311
69
Biji Manoj, aged 30 years. D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Ayroor, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.
70
Saji.M, aged 38 aged, S/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O
33
(Addl. 10 died) (Addl. 11 to 70 were impleaded as order on IA.3066/19 dated 09.12.2020) 71
Rasheeda Abdul Hakkim, D/o Mohammed Fathima aged 69 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
72
Shahida Salahudeen D/o Muhammed Fathima, aged 67 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
73
Mohammed Asharaf, S/o Mohammed Fathima, aged 66 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
74
Nabeera Rasheed D/o Mohammed Fathima, aged 68 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Tvpm.
75
Saleena Thajudeen, D/o Mohammed Fathima, aged 63 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
34
76
Haseena Nizar D/o Mohammed Fathima, aged 59 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
77
Sareena Iqbal, D/o Mohammed Fathima, aged 55 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O,
78
Raheena Nizamoud D/o Mohammed Fathima, aged 52 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(4th respondent died Addl. 71 to 78 were impleaded as per Order in IA. 3066/19 dated 09.12.2020) 79
Laila Salim D/o Salim Beevi, aged 68 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
80
Nazim Nizar S/o Salma Beevi, aged 65 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
35
81
Shahida Kahar, D/o Salma Beevi, aged 61 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
82
Nazeer, S/o Salma Beevi, aged 55 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
83
Rashed, S/o Salma Beevi, aged 55 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O,
84
Moosa, S/o Salma Beevi, aged 52 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
(Addl. 79 to 84 impleaded as legal heir of the 6th respondent as per order in IA. 3066/19 dated 09.12.2020) 85
Abdul Nazar, S/o Sainaba, 57 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
36
86
Nahaz, S/o Sainaba,aged 55 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
87
Thasnim Nizar, D/o Sainaba, aged 51 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
88
Nazeema, S/o Sainaba, aged 51 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
89
Shameem D/o Sainaba, aged 49 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(7th respondent died Addl. 85 to 85 impleaded as per order in IA 3066/19 respondents as per order in IA. 3066/19 dated 09.12.2020) 90
Fazila Nizar W/o Nizar Ahammed, aged 56 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuam.
37
91
Nizaf Ahammed, aged 30 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O,
92
Femysha, D/o Nizar, aged 27 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
93
Lalu S/o Suhara Beevi, aged 52 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
94
Seema D/o Suhara Beevi, aged 52 years, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
(Addl.respondents 9 & 10 died Addl.90 to 94 impleaded as legal heir as per order in IA. 3066/19 dated 09.12.2020) 95
Sarju Ariff, W/o late Sammual Ariffin, aged about 60 years, residing at Rachana, T.C.95/2201(1), Chennilode, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695011
38
96
Babu Ariff, S/o Late Sumual Ariff, aged 39 years, residing at Rachana, T.C.95/2201(1), Chennilode, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695011
97
Sabu Ariff, S/o Late Sumual Ariff, aged 31 years, residing at Rachana, T.C.95/2201(1), Chennilode, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695011
98
Vipin Nair, aged 50 years, S/o Rema B. Nair, C/o Wing Commander R. Mohanachand, 9E Palance Court, Near Narmada, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram -695011
99
Priya Nair, aged 46 years, D/oRema, C/o Wing Commander R. Mohanachand, 9E Palance Court, Near Narmada, Kowdiar.
39
(Addl. respondents 63 died and Addl respondents 98 & 99 were impleaded as per Order in IA 1/2021 dated 16/02/2021) (By Adv. Kowdiar.S.Mohandas for R1 to R3) (By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan for R4, 9,10,11, R13,15,16,18,19,20,24,62,64) (By Adv. B.Madhukumar for R29) (By Adv. S. Vinodkumar for R22, R53) (By Adv. D.O Sakunthaladevi for R.38) (By Adv. G.S.Sanalkumar for R 48,59) (By Adv. R.Kunjukrishnan Potty for R.51) (By Adv. AJ.Ahammed Kabeer for 94) (By Adv. Saji.A.N for Addl.85 to 90, 92,93) (By Adv. Vanchiyoor K. Sadasivan Nair for Addl.73) By Adv. V.Bahuleyan for R39, 42, 47, 50,54) (By Adv Nemom B.Sanjeev for 42) (By Adv. Anandakuttan for R49) (By Adv. V.S.Bhasurendran Nair for 26,28 to 31) (By Adv. V.Balachandran Nair for R52) (By Adv. Unniraja for R16) (By Adv. K.A.Asharaf for R70) (By Adv. Arun A.R for R79,80,82) (By Adv. Nizamudeen for R65,67, 68,69) (By Adv. V.Suresh for R17) (By Adv. P.Rajmohan for R15)
I.A. 1147/2019 in O.S.85/1971 Petition filed u/s 75 R/w Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedue. Petitioner
:-
Rukkiya Beevi, D/o Abdul Rehman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695003. (By Adv. S. Shibukumar)
40
Respondents :-
1.
Moli George, W/o George Thomas, Lillylal, T.C.No. 26/2150, Statue Road, GPO, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
2.
Rudrani Amma, D/o Rukmini Amma, Kesavavilasam, Thekkummodu Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
3.
V. Deepa, D/o Vijayakumari, Souparnika, Thekkumoodu Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
4.
Muhammed Fathima (Ded) D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
5.
Adv. T.K.Thomas, (Died) Receiver, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695032
41
6.
Salma Beevi (Died) D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
7.
Sainaba Beevi (Died), D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
8.
Muhammed Abdul Khader (Died), S/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
9.
Nissar Muhammed (Died) S/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
10.
Suhara Beevi (Died), D/o A.Abdul Rahman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
42
11
Tahsildar (Additional), Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
12
Thomas K.C & Mrs. Leelamma Thomas, TC 14/788-1, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
13
Jaya Mohan, T.C.14/788-10, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
14
Santhana Raj, T.C.14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O,
15.
George Varghese, T.C.14/788-13, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O.
43
16.
Vindhya, T.C.14/788-14, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
17
Anish Raj, T.C.14/788-16, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
18
Chandrasekhara Pillai, T.C.14/788-17, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
19
K.K.Nair and Mrs. Sandhya Nair, T.C.14/788-18, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
44
20
Prameela Devi, T.C.14/788-19, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
21
Jany George & Mrs. Donny George, TC 14/788-12, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
22
Aniyan Kunju, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
23
Elsy Praveen, TC 14/788-24, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
45
24
P.A.Mohammed, TC 14/788-25, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
25
Ananda Krishnan, TC 14/788-28, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
26
Thomas Paul, TC 14/788-28, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
27
Pothen K.P & Jerry K. Philip, TC 14/788-3, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O
46
28
Pradeep, TC 14/788-22, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
29
Dr. Sen Varghese, TC.14/788-31, TC 14/788-31, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
30
Ebrahimkutty P.P, TC 14/788-4, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
31
Anitha Kuruvila, TC 14/788-5, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
47
32
Anil Krishnankutty, TC 14/788-6, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
33
Rajesh Viswanathan, TC 14/788-7, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
34
Anitha Alphonse, TC 14/788-9, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
35
Subramanian, Director, Valley View Garden, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
48
36
Nisamudheen, S/o Late Shamsudheen, Nisam Manzil, Thottarakiri, Murukumpuzha.P.O
37
S.R. Roy, Managing Director, Confident Group, Kumarapuram, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
38
Sreevardhan, S/o Chennan, TC 30/1377, V.V.Road, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
39
Krishnan Nair, S/o Balakrishna Pillai, TC 14/663, Sreerangam House , Pothujanam Lane, Chennilode, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
40
Chakrapani, S/o Kochukrishnan, Sreesylam, Kallumoodu, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
49
41
Sambasivan S/o Karunakaran, TC15/299, Guruiyothi Pettah Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
42
Vasudevan S/O Raghavan, TC 30/328, Aradhana, NSS Karayogam Road, Petah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
43
Paulose, S/o Nallathampi, TC 16/7745, Janchy Bhavan, Kumarapuram. Thiruvananthapuram
44
Rajan, S/o Pachan TC 30/1974, Mudayur House, Anayara, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
45
Sainul Arifeen S/o Mohammed Ali, TC 14/1774, Rajana, Ayyankali Road, Kannamoola Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram
50
46
Prabhakaran, S/o Neelakantan, TC 30/1063, Thoppil House, Pallimukku, Pettah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
47
Avaneethranathan, S/o Ayyappan Pillai, Thengumpalli House, Kottukal Village, Neyyattinkara
48
Salim, S/o Vasu, Mannanvilakom House, Near Anayara Pump House, Anayara, Pettah Post.
49
Vijayan, S/o Kolappa Pillai, TC 10/1184, Charuvila Veedu, St.George Lane, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
50
Mohanan Chettiyar S/o Janardhanan Chettyar, TC 76/1799, Anayara, Pettah.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
51
51
Janardhanan Chettiyar, S/o Chellappan Chettiyar, TC 76/69, Chaithanya, Near LP School, Anayara, Pettah.P.O,
52
Sasikala, D/o Saradha Amma, TC 76/501, Nikkil House, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
53
Mohandas, S/o Kunju Krishnan, PKLR, Parakudy Lane, Pulari House, Chakkai, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
54
Sasidharan S/o Ponnan. Kadakampally Thoppil Veetil, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
55
Sethu Nathan, S/o Ponnan, T.77/1168, Viswanatha Bhavan, SN Nagar, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
52
56
K.Padmakumar, TC 4/135, Prasanthil, Ambala Nagar, Kowdiar.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
57
Georgekutty Thomas, S/o Cheriyan Thomas, TC 26/2150, Lilly Lal, Stature Road, Opp: Hotel Mauriya, Thiruvananthapuram
58
Jansi @ Janet D/o Chellamma, Jansi Bhavan, Chettikunnu, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
59
Rajendran, S/o Ramakrishnan, Thoppil Lane, Pedikkattu Muri, Kumarapuram Post, Thiruvananthapuram.
60
Chacko, S/o Joseph, Mezhkkattu Veedu, Kilikunnu, Anayara, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
53
61
Gopi S/o Pachan, Thekkumkara Puthen Veedu, Mariyakkattukonam, Kizhakkum Bhagam, Kottarakkara.
62
Premchand R.Nair, S/o Late K.P.Ramachandran Nair,
TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacadu, Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
63
Rama B.Nair, D/o Late K.P.Ramachandran Nair,
TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacadu, Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
64
Mohan Chand R Nair, S/o late K.P. Ramachandran Nair,
TC 15/1447, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacuad, Thycaud.P.O
54
65
Razeena Fazil, aged 53 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Flat No. 310, Block C, Nandini Gardens, West Fort, Fort.P.O
66
Saleena Ansari, aged 52 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
67
Raheena Lalu, aged 42 years, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at TC.25/3355 (CRRA-160) Chirakkulam Road, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
68
Aji M, aged 40 years, S/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311
55
69
Biji Manoj, aged 30 years. D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, residing at Ayroor, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.
70
Saji.M, aged 38 aged, S/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, Kizhakkevila, Edava.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695311.
(By Adv. V. Bhahuleyan for R39, R47,R50,R54) ( By Adv. G.S.Sanalkumar for R59, (By Adv. D.O.Sakunthala Devi for R38)
others remained exparte) I.A. 4/2021 Petition filed u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Petitioners
1. R. Premchand, “Sethu”, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram presently at Flat No. 10A, Skyline Melody, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Mohanachand R Nair, 9E, Palace Court, Near Narmada Shopping Complex, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram-695003
56
(By Adv Nair Ajay Krishnan.) Respondent
:-
Rukkiya Beevi, D/o Abdul Rehman Kunju, Thekkevila Veedu, Edava, Thiruvananthapuram-695003. (By Adv. S.Shibu Kumar )
These petitions are having been finally heard on 20.11.2021 and the Court on the same day passed the following:COMMON ORDER I.A. 4645/2014 in O.S.85/1971 is an application filed U/S.151 of CPC by Muhammed Abdul Khader, claiming to be one of the legal heirs of Abdul Rahman Kunju, 1st defendant in O.S.85/1971 against T.K.Thomas, Advocate Receiver in O.S.85/1971. Original petitioner died and additional petitioners 2 to 7 were impleaded as legal heirs as per order in I.A.1975/2016 dated 12.04.2017. Subsequently the additional respondents 2 to 65 were impleaded as per order dated 27.02.2016. Thereafter, additional respondents 52 and 60 to 65 were removed from the party array as per order dated 31.03.2016. Now there are 58 respondents in the application.
57
2.
Averments in the affidavit are as follows:-
O.S.85/1971 was a
partition suit and as per the order of the Sub Court, Attingal, receiver was appointed to manage the property in 1969. The 1 st respondent (present receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas) assumed office in 1971 and he published advertisement in Malayala Manorama Newspaper on 08.02.2009 that strangers tried to trespass to the property allotted to the petitioners by virtue of settlement entered into in the appeal suit by the parties before the High Court in 1980. Out of the total extent of 45.54 Acres of land in Kadakampally Village, comprised in Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1279, 1280, 1282 to 1288, 1388 and 1409, strangers obtained 15 Acres in SMP-12/80 of Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in 1980. Petitioner's sister, Muhammed Fathima filed appeal against it before the Appellate Authority. The receiver took possession in July, 1969 and the encroachments and trespass was due to the negligence on the part of the receiver. Trespassers/ strangers on the strength of some spurious documents filed suits before the Sub Court against the receiver without impleading the petitioners and claimed title
58
over the property and hence direction has to be given to the Advocate receiver to evict the unauthorised claimants from the above property within a time limit. Hence, the application. 3.
Smt.Leelamma Thomas W/o of 3rd respondent, Thomas
(through Adv.S.Sreekumar) filed objection for herself and on behalf of deceased husband. It was contended that no documents were produced by the petitioner to substantiate that he was the legal heir of deceased Abdul Rahman Kunju. The respondent is not aware as to the claim regarding the receivership over the properties mentioned in the petition. The respondent has 5.42 Ares in Sy.No.1281/1/2 of Kadakampally Village and the respondent has been unnecessarily impleaded in the petition. The appellate authority did not set aside the proceedings in SMP 12/1980 and petitioner has no right to seek eviction of occupants in the land. No documents were produced to show that the counter petitioner's property is under the receivership. She prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4.
4th respondent, Jaya Mohan (through Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan)
filed objection contending that the petitioner, his predecessors or
59
representatives have no right, title or interest in any of the properties in Sy.Nos.1279 to 1288 of Kadakampally Village. 23.4 Acres in sy.Nos.1279 to 1288 of Kadakampally Village was purchased by K.P.Ramachandran Nair as per sale deed No.2019 of 1968 from descendants
of
Periyammana
Shambu
Potti
Narayanan
Potti.
Narayanan Potti purchased the property in court auction in 1954. There was a tenancy right of Mr.Kannakku Madhavan Nair and family over the said property from 1854 (1156 M.E.). The respondent's predecessors obtained
the
property
as
per
document
No.2882/1969
of
Thiruvananthapuram SRO and the tenancy right over 15.65 Acres was obtained from legal heirs of Kannakku Madhavan Nair. Thus the 4 th respondent's predecessor became the absolute owner of 15.65 Acres in Sy.No.1279 to 1288 of Kadakampally Village. 15.65 Acres was cultivated by the predecessor and he, vide SMP 12/80 order dated 05.05.1980, obtained pattayam. Mutation was effected and the parties were paying tax and the actual extent on measurement is only 12.27 Acres, even though the deeds reveal the extent of 15.65 Acres. The additional respondent's predecessor during 1997 had a housing scheme and at
60
present 120 residential plots are demarcated and individual owners effected transfer of registry and paying tax from 2000 to 2012. When they tried to remit land tax for the year 2012 – 2013, it was informed by the Village Officer, Kadakampally Village that there was direction not to collect the land tax in respect of Sy.Nos.1279 to 1283 and 1285 to 1288. On obtaining encumbrance certificate for the year 2009 – 2012, it was revealed that several agreements for sale were created by the petitioner and his family members who were not having right or possession over the properties. It was revealed that it was under the patronage of politicians/ registration officials/ revenue officials and persons in police. A complaint was given by the land owners action council before the Kerala Registration Inspector General regarding the issues that agreements or sale deeds were executed by the petitioners and family members under the guise of O.S.4/1965 and O.S.85/1971. The parties to the suits created documents of title in connivance with revenue officials influenced by some staff members of Chief Minister and other Ministers who created fictitious Thandapper Account and tried to trespass upon the land and to obtain forcible possession of the properties. Some of the additional
61
respondents filed WP(C) 19462/13 for protecting their right and seeking investigation by CBI. The Hon'ble High Court categorically found that the parties in O.S.4/1965 and O.S.85/1971 never acquired right, title or possession in respect of properties in Kadakampally Village and directed CBI investigation and final report was filed before the court by CBI. The Hon'ble High Court also directed Vigilance Deputy Collector to investigate and file report. Receiver, T.K. Thomas was examined by the (Vigilance) Deputy Collector on 28.06.2013 and he had stated that he has no physical possession of the properties in Kadakampally Village. There was no prayer for redemption and persons in actual possession were not impleaded in the above suits. Muhammed Abdul Khader, petitioner filed WP(C) 24900/12 suppressing all the real facts. No documents were produced to show that the receiver took possession of the said properties. Receiver himself filed report that he has not taken possession of the property in Kadakampally Village and had given up his receivership in 1981. I.A.4645/14 was filed while the court was hearing various claim petitions and subsequently additional respondents were impleaded by producing copy of the impleading petitions in WP(C)
62
24900/12. The claim petitions filed are pending and the Hon'ble High Court directed that the claim petitions be heard on merit and hence I.A.4645/14 is unsustainable. The petitioner traces his title through a compromise deed in O.S.4/1965. No property in Kadakampally Village has been scheduled in the compromise decree and property in Kadakampally Village is not included in O.S.85/1971. The respondent is the owner in possession of 7 Cents in Sy.No.1286 since 2004. No receiver took possession of the property till date. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.
9th respondent, Chandrasekhara Pillai (through Adv.Nair Ajay
Krishnan) filed objection taking up similar contentions in the counter filed by the 4th respondent. It was contended that the respondent was in possession and absolute ownership of 7 Cents in Sy.No.1286 from 2005 onwards as per sale deed No.4125 of 2005 and the property is not under receivership. 6.
10th respondent, K.K.K. Nair (through Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan)
filed objection taking up similar contentions of respondents 4 and 9. It was contended that he was in possession of 7 Cents in Sy.No.1286 from
63
2005 onwards as per sale deed No.4124/2005. 7.
11th respondent, Prameela Devi (through Nair Ajay Krishnan)
also raised similar contentions in her objection. She claimed title over 15 Cents in Sy.No.1282/7 from 2004 as per sale deed No.4684/2004. 8.
12th respondent, Jany George and Donny George (through
Adv.Ajitha Kumari) filed counter taking up similar contentions. It was contended that Fathima filed appeal (43/07) against SMP 12/80 after 27 years before the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha along with an application to condone the delay and it was challenged by respondents 56 to 58 in WP(C) 12576/2009 and is pending. Respondents purchased 7 Cents in Sy.No.1182 from Sudhi Sreedar in 2007. The property was already mortgaged with SBT, Kowdiar. The petition is not in accordance with Order XIX of CPC and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9.
13th respondent, Kunjukutty Aniyan Kunju (through Adv.Vinod
Kumar) filed objection taking up similar contentions in the objection of Jaya Mohan (4th respondent). It was claimed that he obtained 25.02. Cents in Sy.No.1282 from 2004 onwards as per sale deed No.1336
64
dated 13.04.2004 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10.
14th respondent, Elsy Praveen (through Adv.K.Ajan) filed
objection taking up similar contentions and claimed title to property covered by sale deed No.1867/05. She constructed a building in the property by availing loan from SBI, Kesavadasapuram and contended that receiver never took possession of the property and prayed for dismissal of the application. 11.
15th respondent, P.A.Muhammed filed objection (through
Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan) taking up similar contentions raised by 4 th respondent, Jaya Mohan. He claimed title over 5 Cents in Sy.No.1286 as per sale deed No.4122/2005 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 12.
16th respondent, Anand Krishnan who filed objection through
Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan also took up similar contentions and claimed title over 17 Cents in Sy.No.1286 as per sale deed No.997/2006 and adopted contentions of 4th respondent (Jaya Mohan). He prayed for dismissal of the application. 13.
17th respondent, Thomas Paul Mecherikkkunnil represented
by Power of Attorney holder filed objection through Adv.V.Suresh
65
contending that his house is not situated in the subject matter in O.S.85/1971. Compromise in O.S.85/1971 is not binding on persons who are not signatories to the settlement. A purchase certificate issued by Land Tribunal is conclusive and he purchased the property from Premchand R Nair, Rama B Nair and Mohan Chand Nair (respondent Nos.57 to 59) as per sale deed No.487/06 in respect of 10 Cents in Sy.No.1291 and 5.356 Cents in Sy.No.1286. Residential building was constructed through Integrated Housing Developers Ltd. and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 14.
18th respondent, Pothen.K.P. filed objection (through Adv.
Nair Ajay Krishnan) taking up the same contentions of 4 th respondent and claimed title over 8.06 Cents of property in Sy.No.1282 as per sale deed No.2430 of 2004 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 15.
19th
respondent,
Pradeep
filed
objection
through
Adv.S.Sreekumar claiming ownership to 2.83 Ares in Sy.No.1281/1/14. It was alleged that his property was not covered by any plaint schedule property and prayed for dismissal of the application. 16.
20th respondent, Sen Varghese through Adv.Nair Ajay
66
Krishnan filed objection taking up similar contentions in the objection filed by 4th respondent and claimed that he along with his wife Ritzy Varghese are the absolute owners of 10 Cents of property in Sy.No.1286 as per sale deed No.181/2006. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 17.
24th
respondent,
Rajesh
Viswanathan
through
Adv.M.Unnikrishnan filed objection taking up similar contentions. According to him, his property was 8 Cents in Sy.No.1282 of Kadakampally Village and the same was not under receivership. It was contended that O.S.85/1971 was withdrawn as per proceedings in A.S.51/73 of the Hon'ble High Court. It was contended that
9 Acres 54
Cents and 636 Sq.Links comprised in Sy.Nos.1280 to 1282, 1286 and 1288 of Kadakampally Village originally belong to “Kuvakkara Madam” and the same was mortgaged to Madhavan Nair as per document Nos.2471/1046 (ME) and 1571/1062 (ME) of Thiruvananthapuram SRO. The mortgagee was given possession. Thereafter, Madhavan Nair, his wife, Dhakshayani Amma and Kalyani Pillai @ Thankamma transferred their mortgage right with possession to Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai as per Otty assignment deed No.2313/60 of Thiruvananthapuram SRO.
67
They in turn transferred the Otty as per document No.2882/69 and possession was obtained by respondents 56 to 58 (Premchand, Rama and Mohan Chand). The title to the above 9 Acres 54 Cents was obtained by Shambu Potti in court auction on 07.08.1951 in execution of decree in O.S.38/1120 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, father of respondents 56 to 58 purchased 9.54 Acres from Narayanan
Potti,
Raman
Potti,
Subhadra
Amma
and
Devaki
Antharjanam, legal heirs of Shambu Potti. Thus, K.P.Ramachandran Nair, father of respondents 56 to 58 became the absolute owner of the property and his children are the mortgagees. The property was assigned in favour of respondents 56 to 58 as per SMP 12/80 and Fathima challenged the proceedings after 27 years. Respondent purchased 8 Cents out of 9 Acres 54 Cents and 636 Sq.Links and constructed a building. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 18.
27th respondent, Nizamudeen through Adv.Ajithakumari filed
objection and took up similar contentions. It was claimed that he along with his wife were the owners of 12 Cents in Sy.No.1286/2 of Kadakampally Village. He raised the same contentions in the objection
68
filed by 24th respondent and prayed for dismissal of the application. 19.
29th respondent, Sreevardhanan through Adv.Sakunthala
Devi filed objection and claimed title to property in Sy.No.1238. It was contended that the property is in the possession of Dr.T.S.Sivapriyan @ Priyadarsan, the son of 29th respondent. Grandfather, Sri.T.M.Chennan executed gift deed No.622/74 and Chennan had purchased property as per sale deed No.5334/1124(ME) after releasing the mortgages and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 20.
30th respondent (B.Krishnan Nair) through Adv.Bahuleyan
filed objection contending that he is in possession of 25.5 Cents of property in Sy.No.1287 as per sale deed No.3334/82. The prior document was sale deed No.2989/79. He filed O.S.415/09 against the receiver, T.K. Thomas and receiver filed objection contending that he was not in possession of any of the records and had no knowledge regarding the properties taken possession by Adv.Mohammed Shafi. It was also contended that he had released the properties as per order dated 10.07.2008 and was not in possession of any of the properties of Kadakampally Village. O.S.415/09 is pending before the Principal Sub
69
Court. The application has been filed knowing the pendency of the above suit and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 21.
34th respondent (Deepa, 36th respondent (Rudrani Amma)
and 45th respondent, Molly George) through Adv.Kowdiar Mohandas filed objection contending that there was no receivership in respect of their properties. The respondents' predecessor obtained interest even prior to 1965. The mortgage deed in favour of Kochupilla Moosa of 1097 will disprove the case of the petitioner. The mortgagees were not evicted and there was no redemption. There is absolute finding in O.S.245/1124 (ME) that the mortgages are not liable to be redeemed and they obtained right under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The properties were acquired for Amayizhanchan Thodu from the counter petitioners. 60 Sq.Metres in Sy.No.1287/6 was acquired from Molly George and compensation was awarded in LAC 179/81. 5.60 Ares of Rudrani Amma was acquired in Sy.No.1285/2 and 23.50 Ares was acquired in Sy.No.1285/3 and compensation was awarded to Rudrani Amma in LAC Nos.182/87 and 183/87. 5.20 Ares in Sy.No.1285/5 was acquired from the predecessors of respondents and compensation was awarded in LAC 184/87. If the
70
petitioners' predecessors had any right, they would have been made a party to the above proceedings. There is nothing to prove the receivership over the properties and the respondents' properties in Survey numbers mentioned in the petition were never taken possession by the receiver. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition. 22.
38th respondent (Sainul Arifeen) through Adv.V.Bahuleyan
filed objection claiming title to 38.5 Cents in Sy.No.1279 as per sale deed No.783/89. He sold 3 Cents to Sadanandan as per sale deed No.3709/06. The prior owner, Sarala Devi obtained proeprty as per sale deed No.4600/79. She executed possessory mortgage deed No.3507/88 which was released as per document No.3183/88. His property is not under receivership and took up the same contentions in the objection filed by 30th respondent. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 23.
40th respondent (Avaneenthranathan) through Adv.Bahuleyan
filed objection claiming title to 39.5 Cents in Sy.No.1287 of Kadakampally Village as per sale deed Nos.2734 and 2735 of 2004. He filed O.S.386/09 against the receiver and contended that the property is not under the receivership. He took up the same contentions in the counter
71
filed by 38th respondent and prayed for dismissal of the application. 24.
41st respondent (P.V. Saleem) through Adv.G.S.Sanal Kumar
represented by Power of Attorney holder filed objection claiming title to 31.5 Cents in Sy.No.1284 of Kadakampally Village as per sale deed No.3678 of 2000. It was contended that plaint schedule item Nos.455 to 473 belong to Kuvakkara Madam and strangers purchased the same. Mortgagees are also in possession and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 25.
43rd respondent (Mohanan Chettiyar) through Adv.Bahuleyan
filed objection claiming title to 33.5 Cents as per partition deed No.2233/2000 as A schedule. His predecessor obtained property as per sale deed No.2107/73 and the prior owner was Thankamma. The property was acquired for widening of Amayizhanchan Thodu and award was passed in his favour. After publication of notice by the receiver in Malayala Manorama daily on 08.02.2009, he filed O.S.414/2009 and the same is pending. He took up the same contentions in the objection filed by 41st respondent. 26.
42nd and 44th respondents (Vijayan Nair and Janardhanan
72
Chettiyar) through Adv.R.Kunjukrishnan Potti filed objection. It was contended that the petitioner, predecessors or parties in O.S.4/1965 did not acquire title or possession to Kadakampally properties (plaint schedule item Nos.465 to 473 in O.S.4/1965) which was an outstanding mortgage executed by Kuvakkara Madam. The same properties were scheduled as item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971. 1 st defendant obtained superior mortgage in 1097 (ME). The mismanagement of the properties by the 1st defendant (Karanavar) was pleaded in Paragraph 6 of the plaint in O.S.4/1965 which reveal that the mortgage was not redeemed and the Tharavadu sustained loss and damages due to the acts of the Karanavar. It was held by the court that the compromise in O.S.85/1971 was not binding on the plaintiffs and 2 nd defendant and a decree for partition was passed in O.S.85/1971. It was compromised while the appeal was pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Even though it was stated in the compromise regarding the properties in Kadakampally Village, that the encumbrance was binding on parties allotted with item Nos.1 to 3 schedules in the compromise, it is clear that the right devolved was only the liability or the charge over the properties
73
in Kadakampally Village. In both the suits, the mortgagees in possession, were not made parties and there was no prayer for redemption of mortgages on the basis of superior mortgage obtained. Item Nos.373 to 391 belonged to Kuvakkara Madam, West Fort, Thiruvananthapuram and few items were sold by the Madam to strangers and mortgagees are also in possession. Sale deed was executed with direction to redeem the outstanding mortgages subsisting over the property. The person who obtained equity of redemption filed O.S.245/1124 (ME) of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the 8th defendant was impleaded, as a person who secured assignment of the superior mortgage of 1097. The devolution of superior mortgage was discussed in Paragraph 12 of the Judgment and the suit was decreed overruling the contentions of the 8 th defendant, the assignee of 1097 superior mortgage. The Judgment will conclusively prove that the predecessors or the parties in O.S.4/1965 and O.S.85/1971 never got possession of the property in Kadakampally Village. The suit properties were comprised in Sy.Nos.1232 and 1236 (schedule item Nos.375 and 376). The Judgment in O.S.95/1968 in respect of portion of Sy. Nos.1232, 1236, 1238 and 1241 (schedule item
74
Nos.375, 376, 378, 379) will also prove that the parties in O.S.Nos.4/1965 and 85/1971 were not having possession and they had only mortgage right. Counter petitioners 56 to 58, Premchand, Rama and Mohan Chand filed O.P.19462/13 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala seeking enquiry by CBI against petitioner and others. The District Collector directed District Survey Department to measure and demarcate the properties and a list of persons in possession was prepared. The report would reveal that 3.38 Acres of land has been acquired from various Survey numbers scheduled to the plaint. KSEB is also in possession of the property. 58 persons are also in possession of properties and there are several residential buildings. The statement of the receiver was recorded by the (Vigilance) Deputy Collector and he had deposed that he did not have physical possession of the properties. In O.S.38/1120(ME) the plaint schedule properties in O.S.Nos.4/1965 and 85/1971 were attached for realization of money and Shambu Potti purchased the properties in auction and obtained delivery in respect of 12.47 Acres in respect of which mortgagees right was assigned. Nearly 5 Acres were sold to strangers who constructed buildings providing
75
pathway. The Judgment in O.P.19462/13 conclusively found that parties to O.S.Nos.4/1965 and 85/1971 did not acquire any right, title or interest. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the application. 27.
44th respondent (Janardhanan Chettiyar) also filed objection
through Adv.Kunjukrishnan Potti contending that
the court cannot
assume that the occupiers in the property are encroachers. In WP(C) 19431 it was found that there are 108 apartments and 71 residential buildings in 12.24 Acres and it was found that 150 persons were residing in the properties in their possession. 28.
46th respondent (Sasikala) through Adv.V.Balachandran Nair
filed objection. She claimed title over 8 Cents of property with pathway having an extent of 8½ Cents in Sy.Nos.1279/4 and 1279/3 of Kadakampally Village as per sale deed No.1334/95. Her predecessor acquired the property as per sale deed No.487/94 and she paid tax up to 2015. Thereafter the revenue authorities did not permit payment of tax. The respondent's property was part of the property in mortgage deed No.232/1955, sale deed No.1233/58, settlement deed No.3091/67 and partition deed No.855/76. She prayed for dismissal of the application.
76
29.
47th respondent (Mohandas) through Adv.Vinod Kumar filed
objection taking up similar contentions in the objection filed by 4 th respondent. It was claimed that he was in possession of 70 Cents in Sy.No.1238/1 as per sale deed No.516/86 and prayed for dismissal of the application. According to him, property in Sy.No.1238 does not find place in CMP 3673/79 in A.S.118/73 and the survey number was fraudulently included in paper publication dated 08.02.2009 in Malayala Manorama. 30.
48th
respondent
(Sasidharan)
filed
objection
through
Adv.Bahuleyan claiming ownership and possession to 6 items of properties in Sy.No.1285 of Kadakampally Village (9.71 Ares as per sale deed No.2972/83, 17.5 Cents as per document No.3341/83 and Patta No.839, 42 Cents as per sale deed No.1557/84 and Patta No.12839, 14 Cents as per sale deed No.3028/8 and Patta No.12843, 10.5 Cents as per sale deed No.666/80 and Patta No.9760 and 6.5 Cents as per sale deed No.5255/94 and Patta No.25900). On perusing the publication of notice in Malayala Manorama daily dated 08.02.2009 by the receiver, he
77
filed O.S.386/09 against the receiver and receiver had stated that he was not in possession of any properties in Kadakampally Village. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 31.
49th
respondent
(Sethunathan)
filed
objection
through
Adv.M.R.Anandakuttan. It was contended that the mortgagors in 1097 document obtained no possession over the properties. The property was outstanding in two previous mortgages and 1097 was only a superior mortgage. The outstanding mortgage was with Kannakku Padmanabha Pilla and Easwari Narayana Pilla and mortgage deed No.1097 never came into operation. There was no prayer for redemption and his properties were part of the properties in the mortgage and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 32.
53rd respondent (Rajendran) through Adv.G.S.Sanal Kumar
filed objection contending that he along with Valsalakumari are the joint owners in possession of 35 Cents in Sy.Nos.1279/3 and 1279/3-2 of Kadakampally Village as per sale deed No.4542/03.The predecessor had obtained 42 Cents as per gift deed No.1149/69 and the third vendor obtained property as per sale deed No.588/98 of Thiruvananthapuram
78
SRO. 35 Cents formed part of 84 Cents belong to Shambu Potti who obtained it as per sale certificate in O.S.38/1120 (ME). Shambu Potti executed sale deed No.1233/58 in respect of 84 Cents in favour of Chembakakutty Amma and Balakrishna Pillai. Balakrishna Pillai expired and Chembakakutty Amma executed gift deed No.3091/67 in respect of half right (42 Cents) in favour of Chellamma. Chellamma executed gift deed No.1149/69 in favour of Parameswaran Nair and Gangadevi Amma and Saritha obtained 10 Cent as per sale deed No.88/98 and she executed sale deed No.4542/03 with respect to 35 Cents in favour of respondents. Respondent prayed for dismissal of the application. 33.
26th respondent (Balu), Premchand R.Nair, Rama B.Nair and
Mohan Chand R.Nair (respondents 56 to 58) through Adv.Kunjukrishnan Potti filed joint objection. It was contended that O.S.4/1965 was filed by 12th defendant for removing the Karanavan (1st defendant) and item No.455 to 473 was the same properties described as item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971. As per the compromise, E schedule was allotted to 1st defendant, D schedule was allotted to 2nd defendant, A schedule part I was allotted to defendants 3, 12 and 55 to 59, A schedule Part II was
79
allotted to defendants 4 and 60, 65 and A schedule part III was allotted to 5th defendant in O.S.4/1965. 1st defendant in O.S.4/1965 who is the 1 st defendant in O.S.85/1971 did not acquire any right in the properties in Kadakampally Village and the property was not under receivership. In OP 19462/13, it was found that the receiver was unreliable and reports and steps taken by him are false. It was also held that the parties in O.S.Nos.4/1965 and 85/1971 did not acquire any right over the properties in Kadakampally Village and respondents prayed for dismissal of the application. 34.
I.A.815/2019 in I.A.4645/2014 was filed on 14.03.2019 by Rukkiya
Beevi under Order XL Rule 1 r/w 151 of CPC after the death of Adv.T.K.Thomas, receiver, 1st respondent in I.A.4645/2014. 35.
The averments in the affidavit are as follows:- The petitioner
is Rukkiya Beevi D/o Abdul Rehman Kunju. She claimed to be one of the legal heirs in O.S.85/1971 and that she was 3 rd additional petitioner in I.A.4645/2014. It was alleged that the suit was settled and the Hon'ble High Court directed the parties to take possession of the properties from the hands of the receiver. Respondents filed O.P.2520/2017 before the
80
Hon'ble High Court without impleading the parties in O.S.85/1971. The petitioner filed review petition and the Hon'ble High Court directed this court to receive a statement from the Advocate Commissioner instead of examining him and accordingly the receiver filed a statement. Thereafter the receiver died and a new receiver has to be appointed. The petitioners sought to appoint a retired District Judge as receiver along with a Senior Advocate and a retired Tahsildar to assist the receiver to file report within a time fixed by the court. 36.
Respondents 1 to 3, Molly George, Rudrani Amma and
Deepa (respondent Nos.45, 36 and 34 respectively in I.A.4645/2014) filed counter contending that the other counter petitioners in I.A.(R4 to R10) were described as died and their legal heirs were not impleaded. Counter petitioners to 2 to 58 in I.A.4645/2014 were not impleaded and the application is bad for non joinder of parties. The petitioner, Rukkiya Beevi is not additional 3rd petitioner in I.A.4645/2014 as claimed and she is not competent to file the petition without disclosing her right. There was no direction permitting the parties to take possession of the property from the receiver. The second review petitioner in O.P.2520/2017
81
Muhammed Khasim is not impleaded in the application. The appointment of a new receiver is absolutely unwarranted in this case and there is nothing to show the details of properties, if any, taken possession by the deceased receiver. There is no ground to appoint a group of persons to assist the receiver and respondents prayed for dismissal of the application. 37.
Respondents
13,
18
to
20
and
27,
Jaya
Mohan,
Chandrasekhara Pillai, K.K.K.Nair, Prameela Devi and Pothen.K.P. (who are the respondents 4, 9, 10, 11 and 18 respectively in I.A.4645/2014) filed joint objection taking up the same contentions in the objection filed to I.A.4645/2014. It was contended that the properties of additional respondents was never under receivership. The question whether Mytheenkunju Abdul Rehman Kunju, his predecessors or successors have any right, title or possession in properties in Sy.Nos.1279 of 1288 of Kadakampally Village is to be decided and the question of appointing a new receiver does not arise before deciding the above question. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the application. 38.
22nd
respondent,
Aniyan
Kunju
(13th
respondent
in
82
I.A.4645/2014) filed objection taking up the same contentions in the objection filed to I.A.4645/2014 and contended that there was no executable decree in O.S.85/1971. He claimed title to 25.02 Cents in Sy.No.1282/3 of Kadakampally Village as per sale deed No.1336/04 and took up the same contentions in the counter filed by respondents 1 to 3 in this I.A. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the application. 39.
29th
respondent,
Sen
Varghese
(20th
respondent
in
I.A.4645/2014) filed objection taking up the same contentions in the objection filed by the other respondents and prayed for dismissal of the application. 40.
48th respondent, P.V.Salim (41st respondent in I.A.4645/2014)
filed objection taking up the same contentions in the objection filed to I.A.4645/2014 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 41.
51st respondent, Janardhanan Chettiyar (44 th respondent in
I.A.4645/2014) filed objection taking up same contentions in the objection filed to I.A.4645/2014 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 42.
53rd
respondent,
Mohandas
(47th
respondent
in
83
I.A.4645/2014) filed objection, taking up same contentions in the objection filed to I.A.4645/2014 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 43.
59th
respondent,
Rajendran
(53rd
respondent
in
I.A.4645/2014) filed objection taking up same contentions in the objection filed to I.A.4645/2014 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 44.
62nd and 64th respondents, Premchand R Nair and Mohan
Chand R Nair (56th and 58th respondents in I.A.4645/2014) filed objection taking up same contentions in the counter filed to I.A.4645/2014 and prayed for dismissal of the application. 45.
I.A.1147/2019 in I.A.4645/2014 is an application filed by Rukkiya
Beevi, petitioner in I.A.815/2019 U/S.75 r/w Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, raising the same allegations in I.A. 815/2019. It was alleged that receiver, T.K. Thomas died on 04.02.2019 and she sought measurement of
19 items of properties (1.53 Acres in Sy.No.1203, 1.70 Acres in
Sy.No.1204, 2.4 Acres in Sy.No.1232, 4.30 Acres in Sy.No.1236, 3.66 Acres in Sy.No.1236, 9 Cents in Sy.No.1240, 98 Cents in Sy.No.1241,
84
1.47 Acres in Sy.No.1270, 86 Cents in Sy.No.1409, 2.98 Acres in Sy.No.1279, 2.36 Acres in Sy.No.1283, 4.80 Acres in Sy.No.1284, 5.36 Acres in Sy.No.1285, 2.7 Acres in Sy.No.1287, 1.16 Acres in Sy.No.1288, 1.16 Acres in Sy.No.1280, 3.17 Acres in Sy.No.1282, 4.22 Acres in Sy.No.1286 and 66 Cents in Sy.No.1286). It was alleged that the encroachers are trying to make further constructions in the properties. 46.
50th respondent, Mohanan Chettiyar (43 rd respondent in
I.A.4645/2014 and 50th respondent in I.A.815/2019) filed objection taking up the same contentions in the objection filed to the above applications. It was contended that the application has been filed under the assumption that the properties were taken possession by the receiver and the same was under custodia legis. It was contended that neither T.K.Thomas nor Adv.Muhammed Shafi took possession of the properties in Kadakampally Village and the respondent filed O.S.414/2009 for declaration of his title to 33.5 Cents in Sy.No.1270. The application has been filed maliciously and the respondent prayed for dismissal of the application.
85
47.
40th respondent, Avaneenthranathan (40th respondent in
I.A.4645/2014 and 47th respondent in I.A.815/2019) filed objection taking up the same contentions in the objection filed to the above applications and prayed for dismissal of the application. 48.
54th
respondent,
Sasidharan
(48th
respondent
in
I.A.4645/2014 and 54th respondent in I.A.815/2019) filed objection taking up the same contentions raised in the objection filed to the above applications. It was contended that the property was not custodia legis and prayed for dismissal of the application. 49.
39th respondent, Balakrishnan Nair (30th respondent in
I.A.4645/2014 and 39th respondent in I.A.815/2019) filed objection taking up the same contentions raised in the objection filed to the above applications and prayed for dismissal of the application. 50.
59th respondent, Rajendran (43rd respondent in I.A.4645/2014
and 59th respondent in I.A.815/2019) filed objection taking up the same contentions raised in the objection filed to the above applications and prayed for dismissal of the application.
86
51.
38th
respondent,
Sreevardhanan
(29th
respondent
in
I.A.4645/2014) filed objection taking up the same contentions raised in the objection filed to the above application and prayed for dismissal of the application. 52.
I.A.4/21 in I.A.815/2019 is an application filed by respondents 56
and 58 in I.A.4645/14 and additional respondents 62 and 64 in I.A.815/19 U/S.151 of CPC. It was alleged that they had filed objection in I.A.815/19 and I.A.4645/14 and produced relevant documents of title and possession. By taking up similar contentions in I.A.2/21, they sought to determine the right, title or possession of Mytheen Kunju Abdul Rehman Kunju or his predecessors or successors in interest in properties comprised
in
Sy.Nos.1279
to
1288
of
Kadakampally
Village,
Thiruvananthapuram District along with I.A.4645/14 and I.A.815/19. 53.
Rukiya Beevi filed objection contending that the petition is not
maintainable. Patta No.12/80 obtained by the petitioner is under challenge before the appellate authority and W.P.12576/09 is still pending. The properties in Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1240, 1241,
87
1270, 1409, 1279, 1280, 1282 to 1288 belonged to Kuvakkara Madam and was matter of mortgage obtained by respondents' predecessors in 1926 While the right to file suit for redemption will end in 1970 if 60 years is the period of redemption, the property could be redeemed up to 1983. The property was taken possession by the receiver in 1969. No civil suit was filed to establish the right of the petitioner and no original documents are produced. All the contentions raised in the petition are baseless and respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 54.
Respondents 65, 67 to 69 in I.A.4645/14 filed memo adopting
the contentions in the objection filed by Rukiya Beevi to I.A.4/21. 55.
Based on the respective contentions, the following points
arise for consideration:(i)
Whether the receiver appointed in O.S.85/1971, Adv.Muhammed Shafi or Adv.T.K.Thomas had taken possession of properties in Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1279, 1280, 1282 to 1288 and 1409 of Kadakampally Village ?
(ii)
Whether the receiver can be discharged after the withdrawal of the suit, O.S.85/1971 ?
(iii) Whether there exist circumstances for appointment of a new receiver after the death of Sri.T.K.Thomas, the receiver as prayed for in I.A.815.2019 ?
88
(iv) In case the receiver is to be appointed, whether direction can be given to the newly appointed receiver to take steps to evict any occupants from the properties in Survey numbers referred above ? (v)
Whether the petitioners' predecessors in O.S.85/1971 had any right or possession to the properties in the above Survey numbers ?
(vi) Whether a commissioner has to be appointed to measure out the properties with the assistance of a Surveyor as prayed for in I.A.1147/2019 ? (vii) Relief and cost. 56.
The
documents
produced
by
the
petitioners
in
I.A.Nos.4645/2014 and 815/2019 were provisionally marked as Exts.A1 to A11 and the documents produced by the contesting respondents were provisionally marked as Exts.B1 to B162. Exts.C1 to C3 were also marked. 57.
Heard the counsel by giving specific time slots for physical
hearing to fixed number of counsel and other counsel were permitted to watch court proceedings and to hear the arguments virtually. 58.
Adv.K.A.Asharaf had filed argument notes. Adv.Balagovindan
and Adv.Shibukumar also filed argument notes for and on behalf of petitioners.
89
59.
The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, Adv.Kowdiar
S.Mohandas,
17th
respondent,
Adv.V.Suresh,
29th
respondent,
Adv.Sakunthala Devi, 48th respondent, Adv.G.Sanal Kumar and 44 th Janardhanan Chettiyar, Adv.Kunjukrishnnan Potti filed argument notes. (Adv.Kunjukrishnan Potti submitted that written arguments submitted in I.A.1702/2009 may be accepted as the argument notes filed in the present applications). For the sake of convenience parties are hereinafter referred with respect to their rank in I.A.4645/2014 and petitioner in I.A.815/2019 will be referred as Rukkiya Beevi. Facts of the case 60.
Records reveal that the 9th defendant, Abdul Rahman Kunju
Yusuf as plaintiff had filed O.S.67/1961, a suit for partition and it was renumbered as O.S.4/1965. The matter was settled between the parties to the suit and the suit was dismissed. O.S.9/1963 was filed by Moosa Asha Beevi, a suit for partition claiming 2/3 rd right in the plaint schedule properties. That suit was renumbered as O.S.7/1968 and was later dismissed. Thereafter the suit was restored and refiled as O.S.89/1971.
90
60(a). Attingal
as
O.S.85/1971 was originally filed before the Sub Court, O.S.14/1969
by
Aysha
Ummal
and
Avva
Ummal.
I.A.1094/1969 was filed for appointment of receiver. As per order dated 28.07.1969, Adv.Muhammed Shafi was appointed as the receiver in O.S.14/1969 in respect of A and B schedule properties which were not in the possession of the parties to the suit. It is also revealed that the item Nos.121, 137, 138 and 148, the properties in the possession of 2 nd plaintiff and other properties mentioned in the objection filed to I.A.1099/1969 were excluded from the receivership. 60(b).
O.S.14/1969
Thiruvananthapuram
and
was was
transferred renumbered
to as
Sub
Court,
O.S.85/1971.
I.A.6145/1971 was filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for removal of the receiver, Muhammed Shafi. As per order dated 04.11.1971 in I.A.301/1971 Sri.Muhammed Shafi was removed (but not discharged) and Adv.T.K.Thomas, 1st respondent in I.A.4645/2014 was appointed as the receiver. As per the same order, Sri.T.K.Thomas, receiver was directed to verify if defendants 1 and 27 encroached plaint schedule item Nos.364 and 370 and if so the receiver was directed to
91
evict them legally and was directed to take over possession of the properties. 60(c).
O.S.85/1971 and O.S.89/1971 were jointly tried. Even
though the claim was resisted based on Ext.A4 family settlement dated 26.10.1968, on the basis of which O.S.4/1965 was settled and dismissed, court held that the plaintiffs and 2 nd defendant in O.S.85.1971 were not parties to Ext.A4 family settlement. As per Common Judgment dated 31.07.1971, O.S.89/1971 was dismissed and a preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S.85/1971, declaring plaintiffs 13/39 share in A to D schedule properties. 60(d).
The judgment and decree was challenged before the
Hon'ble High Court by filing A.S.51/1973 by defendants 16 to 18. During the pendency of the appeal and connected appeals and CMAs, the matter was settled and plaintiffs in O.S.85/1971 were permitted to withdraw the suit, O.S.85/1971, A.S.51/1973 and other connected appeals, on the basis of compromise as per CMP No.2340/1980 filed before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the Judgment dated 20.02.1980, the Hon'ble High Court permitted withdrawal of the suit (O.S.85/1971 and
92
A.S.51/1973) reserving the rights of the parties in A.S.51/1973 to effect partition as per CMP 2340/1980. It was also directed that steps shall be taken for discharging the receiver appointed in the suit. 60(e).
Some of the parties filed applications before the Principal
Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for getting the properties released by the receiver and some of the properties were released by the receiver. The receiver also filed an application as I.A.4690/2014 for discharging him from receivership stating his old age as the reason. 60(f). The original petitioner in I.A.4645/2014, Muhammed AbdulKhader
died
and
his
legal
heirs
filed
I.A.1975/2016
for
impleadment. The legal heir ship certificate produced as Ext.A1, was marked and PW1 was examined and as per order dated 12.04.2017, additional petitioners 2 to 7 were impleaded in I.A.4645/2014 as legal heirs of deceased 1st petitioner in I.A.4645/2014. Rukiya Beevi was not a party to I.A.1975/2016. 60(g). Records also reveal that O.P.922/17 was filed by Mohammed Asharaf S/o Mohammed Fathima and as per order dated 14.03.2017 there was direction for early disposal of I.A.4645/14 filed
93
before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram on or before 31.07.2017. Mohammed Fathima was the daugther of 1st defendant in O.S.85/1971. 60(h).
Molly
George,
Rudrani
Amma
and
Deepa
filed
I.A.1742/2017 to examine the receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas regarding report dated 26.04.2017. The application was dismissed by the Sub Judge. As per the order dated 22.08.2017 in O.P.2520/17 the order in I.A.1742/17 dated 05.08.2017 of Sub Court was set aside and the Sub Judge was directed to consider the sustainability of the contentions in respect of the right of the petitioners in O.P.2520/17 (who were not parties to O.S.85/71) and receiver was directed to submit report regarding the items of properties taken over by him. 60(i).
Rukiya Beevi filed Review petition as R.P.802/17 in
O.P.2520/17 and as per order dated 22.11.2017, clarification was issued that the question to be decided was whether the 45 Acres of Kadakampally properties had been taken possession by the receiver and whether that property was custodia legis. The petitioners were allowed to amend Ext.P16 (I.A.1742/17) for impleading all the aggrieved parties and the Sub Judge was directed to consider the sustainability of the
94
contentions of the parties in the light of report filed by the receiver within two months from 22.11.2017 and the application I.A.1742/17 had to be disposed within 6 months. 60(j). Sri.T.K.Thomas, receiver filed a report on 30.01.2018. As per the report, Sri.Muhammed Shafi was appointed as the receiver in O.S.14/1969 by Sub Court, Attingal and he had taken possession of 19 items of properties in Kadakampally Village. O.S.14/1969 was renumbered as O.S.85/1971 and was transferred to the court in Thiruvananthapuram and he was appointed as the receiver, after removing Muhammed Shafi as per order dated 05.11.1971 in I.A.6145/1971. It was further reported that he did not take possession of the properties, taken possession by Adv.Muhammed Shafi, except the properties specifically ordered by the court. According to him, he filed reports till 1980. The matter was compromised and the Hon'ble High Court ordered the receiver to surrender the properties and the trial court was directed to discharge the receiver. The receiver surrendered all the properties taken possession by him, but he was not discharged. I.A.2739/2008 was filed in O.S.4/1965 and receiver filed report stating
95
that he did not take possession of any of the properties. But the court, as per order dated 10.07.2008 ordered Adv.T.K.Thomas, receiver to surrender the properties. Receiver filed several petitions for getting the details of the properties to be surrendered. The parties filed details of properties on 11.08.2008 and WP(C)36888/2008 was filed questioning the delay in surrendering the properties. In obedience to the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.12.2008, he surrendered the properties as per kaichit dated 02.01.2009. The receiver effected paper publication on 05.08.2009 against encroachers to the properties at Kadakampally Village and the matter was reported to the police. Even after surrender of the properties, parties claimed that they got only symbolic possession of the properties and the court directed that the possession be retained by the receiver as per order dated 23.01.2009. According to him, he is in possession of 19 items of properties in Kadakampally Village. But there was no order to collect income or to file periodical statements and hence he did not collect any income from those properties and no statements were also filed. Some of the parties filed O.S.Nos.374/2009, 375/2009, 386/2009, 414/2009, 415/2009 and
96
416/2009 making the receiver as the 1st defendant claiming declaration of title and possession. The receiver filed statements that the properties were custodia legis. After compromise of the matter in the High Court, the receiver surrendered properties to the rightful claimants and some of the legal heirs applied for discharge of the receiver. The receiver also filed application on 19.12.2014 to discharge him from receivership due to his old age and no remuneration was paid to him. He did not collect any income from the properties in Kadakampally and he prayed for discharging him from receivership by appointing another receiver. 60(k). I.A.1/19 was filed in R.P.802/17. It was submitted before the High Court that the receiver was no more. As per order dated 11.02.2019, it was found that steps had to be taken to fill up the vacuum and the Hon'ble High Court directed that the application be disposed by the District Judge. There was also direction for expeditious disposal. Subsequently the case was made over to this court and I.A.4645/14 was received by transfer from the District Court. 60(l).
During
the
pendency
of
the
proceedings,
receiver,
Adv.T.K.Thomas died and thereafter Rukiya Beevi filed I.A.815/2019
97
claiming that she was additional 3rd petitioner in I.A.4645/2014. 60(m). Rukiya Beevi obtained direction for expeditious disposal of I.A.815/2019 by filing O.P.1058/2019 (order dated 28.06.2019). As per order dated 13.11.2020 in O.P.1462/20 Mohammed Asharaf obtained direction for expeditious disposal of I.A.815/19 on or before 20.04.2021. I.A.2/2019 was filed for joint consideration of I.A.4645/2014 and I.A.815/2019. O.P.794/21 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and direction for disposal of I.A.2/21 which was pending in this court was obtained. As per order dated 08.04.2021, O.P.794/21 was allowed directing this court to consider the request in I.A.2/21 within two months from receipt of certified copy of the Judgment. 60(n). During the hearing of I.A.2/20121 and other applications, it was submitted that respondent in O.P.794/21 had filed a review petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was pending. It was also submitted that one of the respondents was already dead as on the date of filing of O.P.794/21 and the matter was suppressed before the Hon'ble High Court and the orders were obtained behind the back of the aggrieved parties.
98
60(o).
As per the order dated 02.08.2021 in R.P.461/21, the
review petition was allowed and Judgment dated 08.04.2021 in O.P.794/21 was recalled. By the Judgment pronounced on 02.08.2021 the Hon'ble High Court disposed O.P.794/21 and directed this court to take up I.A.4645/14 and I.A.815/19 simultaneously and dispose of the Interlocutory Applications expeditiously. It was held that party will be at liberty to raise all her objections including the apprehensions expressed in O.P.794/21 and this court was directed to decide the Interlocutory Applications taking into account the objections of Rukkiya Beevi also. 60(p).
As the prayer in I.A.2/21 for joint consideration of
I.A.Nos.4645/2014 and 815/2019 was allowed as per Judgment dated 02.08.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court, the application, I.A.2/2021 was allowed and I.A.Nos.4645/2014 and 815/2019 were jointly considered. As per order dated 25.08.2021, it was held that the prayer in I.A.4/21 will be considered while considering I.A.Nos.4645/2014 and 815/2019. 61.
In the above background, point Nos.(i) to (v) are considered
together, as the questions to be decided are interlinked. Order XL of CPC deal with appointment of Receivers.
99
As per Order XL Rule (1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order (a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree; (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property; (c) commit the same to the possession, custody, or management of the receiver; and (d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit (2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property, any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove. 62.
It is the settled position that the appointment of receiver is a
discretionary power of the Court to be exercised for the preservation of property in dispute, pending a judicial determination of rights of the parties. Appointment of receiver can be ordered only in extreme cases with utmost care and caution, since it is one of the harshest remedy which the laws provide for the enforcement of rights and Court's discretion shall not be exercised arbitrarily or in an unregulated manner. It is also settled position that if the exigency of a case so requires, court
100
has the power to continue the receiver after the final decree as laid down in Subhadra Rani Pal Choudhary. v. Sheirly Weigal Nain, Others reported in 2005 (5) SCC 230. “Neither Sec.51 (d) or Order XL of CPC prescribe for the termination of the office of receivership. The law on the point may briefly be stated thus (1) If a receiver is appointed in a suit until Judgment, the appointment is brought to an end by the Judgment in the action. (2) If a receiver is appointed in a suit, without his tenure being expressly defined, he will continue to be receiver till he is discharged. (3) But after the final disposal of the suit as between the parties to the litigation, the receiver's function are terminated, he would still be answerable to the court as its officer, till he is finally discharged. (4) The court has ample power to continue the receiver even after the final decree, if the exigencies of the case so require” as laid down in Hiralal Patni v. Loonkaran Sethiya and Others reported in 1962 AIR 21. 63.
The learned counsel for respondents 26, 42, 44, and 56 to 58
(Adv.Kunjukrishnan Potti) relied on the decision in Sherali Khan Mohammed Manekia (M/s.) v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2015 (12) SCC 192 in support of the argument that “A receiver appointed by a court in a pending suit or appeal continues in office till an order of discharge by court is passed when the lis is finally decided”. It was a suit for specific
101
performance of sale of the property and the first appeal was dismissed by the High Court and special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also ended in dismissal. After a long period the receiver submitted reports seeking directions with regard to handing over possession and the High Court held that the receiver shall be deemed to have been discharged after the dismissal of the first appeal by the High Court followed by the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court. It was challenged in the appeal by the appellant contending that even after the disposal of the appeal, the court receiver continues in his office till he is discharged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “When a receiver is appointed in a pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession or otherwise and to keep an account of rent and profits that may be realised by the receiver and to submit it before the court till the liss is finally decided. Ordinarily the function of receivers, who are appointed, comes to an end with the final decision of the case”. 64.
The learned counsel for 17th respondent (Adv.V.Suresh)
relied on the decision in Madhavan Sunanda v. Krishnan Chethoharan
102
reported in 1987 KHC 673 in support of the argument that “the provision under Order 40 Rule 1(2) is intended to safeguard the interest of parties who are in possession and entitled to be in possession independent of the parties to the suit, who have no right to dispossess them and that the summary enquiry under Order 40 Rule 1(2) is only to ascertain if the third party in possession is liable to be removed from the present possession by the receiver and that failure in an application under Order 40 Rule 1(2) will not be a bar to the establishment of the right in a separate suit as principle of res judicata is not involved”. It was also a case where the receiver was appointed in a partition suit and when the receiver attempted to take possession, the same was objected by a third party in possession. It was held that even after getting defeated in a summary enquiry under Order 40 Rule 1(2), the defeated party could have his remedy in a detailed enquiry in a separate suit. The decision in the enquiry under Order 40 Rule 1(2) is no bar to that suit as the enquiry under Order 40 Rule 1(2) was only summary in nature. 65.
The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Anthony.C.
Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan and Others reported in 1996 KHC 1352 (SC) in
103
support of the argument that “court becomes custodia legis of the properties in a suit in respect of which a receiver is appointed and it does not bring about vesting of properties in receiver or in court, free from encumbrances even pendente lite. The rights and obligations of third parties in respect of properties in custodia legis remain unaffected and receiver cannot interfere with any right of third party and receiver does not possess any right higher than the right, a party to the suit possess”. 66.
In view of the above settled legal positions, the main
question is whether the properties in Kadakampally Village (item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971) is custodia legis. The contention of the contesting respondents is that the properties in item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971 (item Nos.465 to 473 in O.S.4/1965) were never taken possession by the receiver appointed in O.S.85/1971 and no reports were filed before the Sub Court that either Adv.Muhammed Shafi or Adv.T.K.Thomas ever took possession of the above properties (herein after referred to as Kadakampally properties). Ext.B116 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.4/1965. There were 540 items of properties in A schedule. Out of the same, item Nos.455 to 473 were the properties in
104
Kadakampally Village comprised in Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1409, 1279, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288. 67.
Admittedly, no receiver was appointed in O.S.4/1965. Ext.A1
is the certified copy of common Judgment dated 31.07.1972 in O.S.85/1971
and
O.S.89/1971
of
Principal
Sub
Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. A preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S.85/1971 declaring 13/39 share to the plaintiffs. O.S.89/1971 was dismissed. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of decree which reveal that item Nos.373 to 391 were the properties in Kadakampally Village comprised in Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1279, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288 and 1409. The other properties situated in various Villages in Thiruvananthapuram, and Kollam Districts. The subject matter in the applications now pending before this court are only the Kadakampally properties referred above. 68.
Ext.A8 is the photocopy of order dated 28.07.1969 in
I.A.1094/1961 in O.S.14/1969 (O.S.85/1971) of Sub Court, Attingal. It was the application for appointment of receiver. As per Ext.A8, order
105
dated 28.07.1969, Adv.T.K.Muhammed Shafi was appointed as the receiver and commissioner in respect of A and B schedule properties which are not in the possession of any of the parties to the suit. It was ordered that in respect of other properties, a commissioner will be deputed to assess the mesne profits and the mesne profits have to be deposited in court periodically. I.A.6145/1971 was filed in O.S.85/1971 for
removal
of
receiver.
Ext.A8(a)
order
dated
05.11.1971
in
I.A.6145/1961 reveal that Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram removed Adv.Muhammed Shafi (but not discharged). The plaintiffs/ petitioners had alleged that A schedule item Nos.364 and 370 continued in the possession of the receiver, Muhammed Shafi. As the plaintiffs had grievance against the receiver, it was found that the receiver was irresponsible and he was removed as per order in I.A.301/1971 on 04.11.1971 and Adv.T.K.Thomas was appointed as the receiver for the properties held by Adv.Muhammed Shafi, as receiver. Adv.T.K.Thomas was also directed to see whether defendants 1 and 27 encroached to plaint schedule item Nos.364 and 370 and if so he was directed to evict them and proceed against them legally, if necessary. Adv.T.K.Thomas
106
was also directed to evict the auction purchasers of former receiver who defaulted payments and was directed to take over the properties and effect fresh auction. 69.
The petitioners could not produce any documents to show
that receiver had filed any report before the Sub Court regarding taking of possession in respect of item Nos.373 to 391. On the other hand, contesting respondents relied on Ext.B147 audit report of receiver's account as on 12.07.1982 in respect of amount deposited by receiver on 29.04.1981. Ext.B148 is the auction notice by the receiver in respect of certain properties in Kollam District. Ext.B149 is the report filed by former receiver, T.K.Thomas which reveal the fact that as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in I.A.1664/1980 dated 18.06.1980, it was directed that the receivership be terminated and possession be handed over to the parties and no fresh auction be conducted by the receiver and hence he did not conduct auction. It was reported in Ext.B149 that he surrendered possession of all the properties by sending notice to the parties in 1981. As per report dated 17.03.1988, the entire properties were already surrendered by the receiver. Ext.B149(a) is another report
107
by the receiver on 05.09.1985. It was reported that the Hon'ble High Court ordered to take steps to discharge the receiver and consequently there was order dated 21.11.1980 from the Sub Court to surrender possession of the properties and to report the matter to the revenue authorities. Some other properties were surrendered as per order in I.A.1664/1980 dated 14.04.1980. In Paragraph 6 of the report, the allegations in the applications were denied by the receiver. It was contended that the application was filed after the filing of discharge application by him on 31.10.1983. The details of the properties were mentioned in Paragraph 9 and none of the properties in Kadakampally Village was referred to in the report. He alleged that he did not receive remuneration after 1977 and sought to discharge him from receivership. Several kaichits evidencing release of the properties were also referred to in Ext.B149(a) by the receiver. Ext.B150 is the statement of account which reveal that the Kadakampally properties were not referred to in the report. Ext.B152 is the copy of kaichit executed in favour of the receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas in respect of several items of properties in Edava,
108
Varkala, Chadayamangalam etc. Muhammed Abdul Khader was a party to the same. 70.
As the case records were more than 50 years old and the
petitioners could not produce any documents to reveal that the receiver had filed report before the Sub Court specifically stating that he had taken possession of Kadakampally properties, I had issued letter of request addressed to the Presiding Officers of the Sub Court, Attingal and Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram to verify if reports of taking possession or receiver's registers were available in connection with appointment of Adv.Muhammed Shafi in O.S.14/1969 of Sub Court, Attingal
and
Adv.T.K.Thomas
in
O.S.85/1971
of
Sub
Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. As per letter dated 12.07.2021 it was reported by Sub Judge, Attingal that the entire records in O.S.14/1969 and O.S.9/1963 were transmitted to Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and those suits were renumbered as O.S.Nos.85/1971 and 89/1971 and such records were not available at Sub Court, Attingal. 71.
It
was
reported
by
the
Principal
Sub
Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram that the case records were more than 50 years old
109
and the records in the file were in a dilapidated condition and several papers in the file were found broken into pieces and the middle portion of the pages were found partially missing due to damage and it was not possible to issue certified copies of majority of case records as the papers had turned brittle due to efflux of time and gets broken into small bits of pieces at a mere touch. It was also reported that his predecessor in office had verified the physical condition of the case files and found that it was not practically possible to issue certified copies of the case records. After deputing additional staff, some of the documents were traced out and attested copy of the plaint and Judgment in O.S.85/1971 were forwarded to this court for inspection. The same were compared with Exts.A1 and A2 produced by the petitioners and the plaint schedule items were ascertained. Photocopy of the receiver's report and audit report were also issued by the learned Sub Judge for inspection. 72.
Photocopy of the same report was produced as Ext.B147
referred above. Exts.B147 to B150 do not reveal that any property in Kadakampally Village was taken possession by the receiver. The report dated 25.01.1975 filed by the receiver marked as Ext.C2 reveal that as
110
per order dated 13.12.1974 in I.A.6589/1979 of the Hon'ble High Court, party had filed application for getting release of plaint A schedule item Nos.101, 103, 106 to 111, 125, 133, 134 to 138, 147, 151, 153, 360, 350, 351, 355, 357, 365 and 366 and certain items in plaint B schedule and those properties in Navayikkulam, Edava, Chadayamangalam and Kulathooppuzha Village were released to the party. The report dated 02.07.1972 marked as Ext.C2(a) filed by Adv.T.K.Thomas revealed that he had taken possession of certain items of properties in Chemmaruthi Village on 03.03.1972. It is also revealed that he had taken steps to take possession of items 393 to 413 of Kulathooppuzha Village on 02.07.1972 [Ext.C2(b)]. Ext.B149 report filed by the receiver on 17.03.1988 reveal that he had surrendered possession of the properties in 1981 by issuing notice to all the parties and nobody had objected the same and he filed application on 31.10.1983 for discharging him from receivership. Ext.B149 was prepared on 17.03.1988. 73.
It is also revealed that the properties were released as per
the direction of the High Court in I.A.1664/1980 dated 18.04.1980 wherein his receivership was ordered to be terminated. Ext.B149(a) also
111
reveal that consequent to the order dated 21.11.1980 of Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, after the compromise of the suit, he was directed to surrender possession of the properties. The above reports do not reveal that properties in Kadakampally Village were taken possession by the receiver. 74.
The petitioners relied on the notice published by the receiver
in Malayalam Newspaper that he had taken possession of the Kadakampally properties (45.20 Acres). Ext.C2(c) is the notice dated 04.02.2009 published after order in I.A.2739/1980 of Sub Court-II. It is not known as to how the receiver who filed Ext.B149 report that he surrendered all the properties in 1981 could publish a notice in 2009 that he had taken possession of the Kadakampally properties. 75.
The contesting respondents claimed title and possession to
different extent of properties mentioned in column No.3 on the basis of various title deeds referred to column No.4 and they produced respective documents mentioned in column No.5 to prove their possession. Certain respondents also produced decree or Judgments obtained by them declaring their title and possession as detailed in the following table.
112
76.
On verification of the survey numbers mentioned in column
No.3, it can be found that 3 rd respondent claimed property in Sy.No.1281/1/2, 12th respondent claimed property in Sy.No.1182, 17th respondent claimed title to
5 Cents in Sy.No.1291, 19 th respondent
claimed title to property in Sy.No.1281/1/14, 29 th respondent claimed property in Sy.No.1238 and 47th respondent claimed property in Sy.No.1238/1. It was specifically contended by 19 th and 47th respondents that their property were not scheduled to the plaint in O.S.85/1971 and they were unnecessarily impleaded in the applications. But no steps were taken by the petitioners to remove the above persons who owned properties in different survey numbers which had no connection to the plaint schedule item Nos.373 to 391 (Kadakampally properties) involved in O.S.85/1971. Thus it can be found that they were unnecessarily impleaded in the applications. 77.
O.P.922/2017 was filed by Muhammed Asharaf, nephew of
deceased 1st petitioner in I.A.4645/2014 (who is the additional 73 rd respondent in I.A.815/2019), seeking speedy disposal of the matter. Copy of Ext.A4 compromise of 1968 was produced along with the
113
records in O.P.922/2017 (Ext.A10 series). Page No.130 contain copy of application filed in O.S.4/1965 to record the compromise and to withdraw the suit on the basis of Ext.A4 compromise. As per the compromise application, properties in Part I of A schedule are taken by the defendants 3, 12 and 55 to 59. Properties described in Part I and II of A schedule were allotted to 4th defendant and and defendants 60 and 65. Properties in Part III of A schedule were given absolutely to 5 th defendant in O.S.4/1965. As per clause No.9, the parties agreed that properties mentioned in A to E schedule are the only available partible assets in the family and the same alone are partible. As per clause No.15, some properties of several list were outstanding mortgages and some other properties had only mortgage right. Those details were well known to several allotees and so they are not expressly mentioned in the list. In the schedule contained in page No.135 describing A schedule item No.1 consisting of properties in Edava, Paravoor, Varkala, Kulathoopuzha Villages, it has been added as a single sentence that the liabilities over the Kadakampally properties shall be on the allotees of A schedule item Nos.1, 2 and 3. In page No.137, the same sentence has been added
114
after A schedule item No.3 and another sentence has been added after A schedule item No.2 that the right over the properties in Kadakampally Village shall be on the allotees of A schedule item Nos.1 to 3. Apart from the above 3 sentences regarding the Kadakampally properties, the schedule of properties in the compromise did not include any of the properties in Kadakampally Village. 78.
As some of the defendants did not sign the compromise, the
compromise was not recorded and only the suit, O.S.4/1965 was dismissed as withdrawn. Muhammed Asharaf who filed O.P.922/2017 through Adv.Balagovindan and Adv.K.A.Asharaf alleged that the Kadakampally properties were under receivership. Ext.A9 order in O.P.1506/2002 was in respect of 5 Acres of land in Navayikkulam Village in O.S.85/1971 and not in respect of Kadakampally properties. Ext.A6 copy of order in TPOP 487/2010 was produced by the petitioner. It was an application for transfer of O.S.4/1965 and O.S.85/1971 of the same same court and as per order dated 18.02.2011 the application was dismissed by finding that both the suits were not pending and only certain applications were pending before two courts. No right or
115
possession over Kadakampally properties was decided in Ext.A11 and hence the same is not relevant in this case. 79.
Ext.B45
is
a
copy
of
report
prepared
by
Senior
Superintendent, Inspection and Audit. Enquiry was conducted on the basis of a news published in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 19.10.2006. As per
the
report,
disciplinary
proceedings
were
initiated
and
Vidhyodayakumar, Village Officer was suspended, Abdul Gafur, Special Village Officer and Ajikumar, Village man were transferred. It was found that transfer of registry was effected in respect of properties, 2 Acres in Sy.No.1285 in favour of Shanavas, 0.50 Acres in Sy.No.1284 in favour of Nizamudeen Musaliyar, 1 Acre in Sy.No.1285 in favour of Abdul Latheef and 2 Acres in Sy.No.1285 in favour of Hakkim by fraudulently creating thandapper account No.1602 which was lying as zero account from 1988 onwards. 4 items were added in PV (Pokkuvaravu) cases 1037, 1072, 1073 and 1075/2005 in favour of persons who had no possession to the properties. Vigilance enquiry was recommended against Revenue officials who effected illegal transfer of registry in favour of the above persons. As per the report, it was directed that charge memo has to be
116
issued to former Village Officer, Vidhyodayakumar who was under suspension and suspension was recommended in case of other persons. 80.
Ext.B42 is the copy of enquiry report dated 01.07.2013
conducted by Deputy Collector (Vigilance) in respect of the transfer of registry of Kadakampally properties (45.50 Acres). The relatives of Abdul Rehman Kunju (deceased 1st
defendant) filed complaint to revenue
authorities and news was published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 08.05.2013 regarding the issue. On the basis of direction from the Office of Minister of Revenue, the enquiry was conducted. The parties in this case participated in the enquiry. It was found in the enquiry that there was a total extent of 45.54 Acres comprised in Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1409, 1279, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1287, 1288, 1280, 1282 and 1286 (19 items) and thandapper account No.3587 was created in the name of Abdul Rehman Kunju (1 st defendant) and the same was fraudulently created in the zero thandapper account No.3587 after the year 2008 by adding the name of Abdul Rehman Kunju in that account and it was done against the Transfer of Registry Rules. It was found that Abdul Rehman Kunju (1st defendant) or his successors never
117
had possession of the properties. The statement of receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas, was also recorded in the enquiry and it was found that the receiver did not take possession of Kadakampally properties and there was no surrender of properties by the receiver. It was also found that the thandapper account No.1602 was created fraudulently in the name of Abdul Rehman Kunju in the year 2005 for effecting transfer of registry in respect of 5½ Acres of land. The same was cancelled by the RDO as the transfer of registry was against the provisions of the rules. It was found that after fraudulently creating thandapper account Nos.1602 and 3587 in the name of Abdul Rehman Kunju (1 st defendant), his children executed partition deed in 2006. Thereafter, 1 st petitioner's sister, Mohammed Fathima D/o Abdul Rahman Kunju (1 st defendant) transferred 15 Cents in Sy.No.1240 to one Praveen who later executed sale deed in favour of A.M.Asharaf S/o Fathima in 2008 and thandapper account No.44954 was created in favour of Asharaf by deleting account from thandapper account No.3587, even though the party had no possession of the properties. It was found that one P.M.Subramania Pilla was the person who effected the illegal transfer of registry. It was also
118
found that Moosa Haji, predecessor of Abdul Rahman Kunju had mortgage rights in the property. It was also found that the creation of thandapper account No.3587 in favour of Abdul Rahman Kunju, thandapper account No.44954 in favour of Asharaf were illegal and P.M.Subramania Pillai, Village Officer was held responsible for the same. During enquiry, it was found that the properties were in the name of Padmanabha
Pilla
Madhavan
Nair
and
Padmanabha
Pilla
Parameswaran Nair as per BTR and some of the contesting respondents and some others obtained portions of the above properties subsequently. 81.
Ext.B155 is the proceedings of District Collector dated
12.04.2017 which reveal that 1st petitioner's nephew, A.M. Asharaf S/o Mohammed Fathima had submitted application for permitting him to remit tax in thandapper account No.3587 of Kadakampally Village and there was direction obtained in W.P.No.21983/13 to consider his application. After conducting enquiry and hearing rival parties and by considering the enquiry report dated 01.07.2013 of the southern range Deputy Collector (Vigilance), it was found that Abdul Rahman Kunju (1 st defendant) or successors had no possession of properties in thandapper account
119
No.3587 of Kadakampally which was lying as zero account and that the thandapper was created in favour of Abdul Rahman Kunju after 2008 fraudulently. There was direction by Land Revenue Commissioner to cancel the transfer of registry and thandapper accounts. The District Collector found that the property in thandapper account No.3587 was not in the possession of court receiver as per receiver's statement and found that thandapper account No.3587 was fraudulently created and the thandapper holder and successors of Abdul Rahman Kunju (1 st defendant) had no possession. Hence, the application submitted by 1 st petitioner's nephew, Asharaf was rejected and thandapper account No.3587 in favour of Abdul Rahman Kunju (1st defendant) was cancelled. 82.
The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.A5 copy
of refer report in crime No.47/07 in support of the argument that the properties still continued with the petitioners. It was a refer report wherein it was held that the actual dispute was the subject matter in civil cases and the parties had to avail civil remedies. That report is of no help to the petitioners.
120
83.
Respondent Nos.56 to 58, Prem Chand Nair, Rama B Nair
and Mohan Chand Nair filed W.P(C).19462/13 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking CBI enquiry in the matter of creation of thandapper account Nos.1602 and 3587 and in effecting illegal transfer of registries in respect of the properties owned by them. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Sri.Kamalavardhana Rao IAS, Secretary, Revenue, Government of Kerala, submitted Ext.B47 enquiry report to the Hon'ble High Court.
Exts.B42 and 45 reports were also considered by the
Secretary, Revenue who conducted a detailed enquiry. As per the report submitted by Secretary, Revenue; the Kadakampally properties as per the settlement register was in the name of Sankaran and Krishnan and had a total extent of 44.64 Acres and Kuvakkara Madam had obtained Otty right (mortgage). It was found that the thandapper account number of Sankaran and Krishnan was 455 of Kadakampally Village and only those who derive thandapper from 455 alone could be treated as pattadar. The delivery order in O.S.38/1120, document Nos.2019/1968, 2882/1969 and purchase certificate in SM 12/1980 were considered. It was found that 33.64 Acres of land in 13 Sy.Nos. 1203, 1204, 1232,
121
1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287 and 1288 were in the name of Shambhu Potti. It was found that the liabilities as per O.S.38/1954 were cleared in 1929 and properties vested in Shambhu Potti
who
executed
document
No.2019/1968
in
favour
of
K.P.Ramachandran Nair, father of Premchand Nair, Rama B Nair and Mohan Chand Nair, the petitioners in WP(C) No.19462/13. Total extent of 23.07 Acres was transferred to Ramachandran Nair. Thereafter, Premchand Nair, Rama B Nair and Mohan Chand Nair as per document No.2882/1969 purchased the lease hold rights from Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai who devolved lease hold rights form Dakhayani Amma who in turn obtained it from Madhavan Nair as per Otty exchange deed. Doubt was expressed in respect of execution of document No.2882/1969 in favour of Premchand Nair and others. It was also found that as per SM 12/1980 the properties were obtained by Premchand Nair, Rama B Nair and Mohan Chand Nair as per purchase certificate in respect of total extent of 15.88 Acres. It was also found that Fathima, mother of respondent No.15, Asharaf in W.P.(C)19462/13 filed A.A.43/2007 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha challenging SM
122
No.12/1980. AS per Paragraph 4(e), it was found that delay of 27 years and 110 days in filing A.A.43/07 was condoned by the Appellate Authority and the appeal filed by Mohammed Fathima was pending for disposal. It was found that thandapper account No.10156 remained in the name of Premchand Nair, Rama B Nair and Mohan Chand Nair in respect of 5.56 Acres, after transferring the remaining land, out of 15.88 Acres. It was found that creation of thandapper account No.1602 before the execution of document Nos.2833/05 to 2836/05 was fraudulent. The creation of fraudulent thandapper account Nos.1602 and 3587 out of Soonya thandapper account (zero account) was reported to the Hon'ble High Court. It was also reported that A.M.Asharaf submitted forged partition deed No.2677/06 for effecting transfer of registry. It was also found that after obtaining order in W.P.420/12 Asharaf filed contempt case No.1737/12 against the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram and the revenue officials showed unwanted haste to effect transfer of registry in his favour and the same was illegal. It was found that thandapper account No.3587 was fake one and Asharaf (grandson of 1 st defendant) mislead the revenue authorities and investigation by competent agency
123
was recommended. Adv.T.K.Thomas had given statement in the enquiry that he had taken only symbolic possession of the Kadakampally properties. It was found that the letter dated 23.07.2011 issued by the receiver was a living testimony to his suspicious dealings in the case. The report reveal that Vidhyodaya Kumar was suspended on 19.10.2006 and the thandapper account numbers created out of zero thandapper account No.1602 were cancelled by the RDO on 27.06.2009 and thandapper account No.3587 was found to be fabricated one and it was recommended to be cancelled. It was found that thandapper account No.3587 was forged only after 19.06.2008 in the name of a person who died in 1979. It was also found that the original thandapper holder of 3587 was Krishna Panicker S/o Isakki Chami Panicker and the account which was lying vacant as zero account was utilized for forging thandapper account No.3587 in the name of Abdul Rahman Kunju. It was also recommended that document No.2677/06, the partition deed was a fabricated one and it should be cancelled. It was also found that Asharaf, 15th respondent (grandson of 1 st defendant) in Writ Petition alone can be held responsible for fabricating page No.9 of document
124
No.2677/06. It was also found that the land obtained by Premchand Nair and others in SM 12/80 was the subject matter in appellate authority and the inaction of Advocate receiver in reporting the pendency of O.S.85/1971 to revenue authorities has aggravated the problems which lead to creation of false thandapper account and illegal transfer of registry. 84.
Ext.B146 is the Judgment in W.P.(C) No.19462/13. The
report dated 01.07.2013 submitted by the (Vigilance) Deputy Collector (Ext.B42) and Secretary, Revenue (Ext.B47) were considered by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court considered the fact that the properties were worth more than 250 Crores and more than 150 persons were in possession of disputed extent of 45.54 Acres of Kadakampally properties and they were paying tax. The Hon'ble High Court also considered the fact that certain extent of land in Sy.Nos.1270, 1271, 1273 and 1274 were acquired by the Government as per notification dated 27.05.1980 under Kerala Land Acquisition Act and the legal heirs or the successors of Abdul Rahman Kunju or receiver did not claim compensation in respect of the land acquired by the Government except
125
the assignees from the petitioners in O.P.19462/2013. It was also found that an extent of 1.5 Acres of land acquired by the Government was also included in fraudulent thandapper account No.3587. The award in LAR 110/90 was also considered by the Hon'ble High Court. 85.
Adv.Balagovindan, counsel for 15th respondent (Asharaf
S/o Mohammed Fathima) contended before the Hon'ble High Court that 45.54 Acres originally belonged to Kuvakkara Madam and on behalf of the
Madam,
Subramanya
Rue
of
Kuvakkara
Madam
received
Rs.2,51,967/- from Kochupilla Moosa on executing Ottikkuzhikkanam in favour of Kochupilla Moosa in respect of entire extent and Kochupilla Moosa was the great grandfather of Muhammed Fathima. It was argued by Adv.Balagovindan that there was no chance for the petitioners in O.P.19462/2013 to contend that they were cultivating tenants as the properties were in the possession of the receiver from 28.05.1969 and hence custodia legis. The Hon'ble High Court considered the fact that O.S.85/1971 was withdrawn as per Judgment on 20.02.1980 and as such there was no decree in O.S.85/1971. It was also found that O.S.4/1965 filed by the 12th defendant in O.S.14/1969 (O.S.85/1971) was
126
dismissed as withdrawn. It was found by the Hon'ble High Court that the contesting respondents in O.P. failed to produce any report evidencing the fact that the receiver had taken possession of the Kadakampally properties. It was also found that both the partition suits did not result in any adjudication and that as on the date of execution of document No.1899/1097 the Jenmi had no possession over the disputed property and the same was outstanding with two mortgages in favour of Kanakku Padmnabha Pillai and Easwari Narayana Pillai and as such there was no occasion for the Jenmi to transfer possession of property to Kochupilla Moosa. It was also found that the Jenmi, Kochupilla Moosa or predecessors never took any steps to redeem the property from the mortgagees and the mortgagees continued in possession and enjoyment of properties after expiry of term of mortgage. It was also found that the mortgagees were not made parties in the partition suits and the predecessors of Kochupilla Moosa did not file any suit against the mortgagees and hence they cannot contend that they are cultivating tenants entitled to assignment. In Paragraph 45 of of the Judgment, the Hon'ble High Court found that the contention raised by the contesting
127
respondents
including
the
15th
respondent,
Abdul
Asharaf
S/o
Mohammed Fathima that they were the title holders of the property as successors of Kochupilla Moosa as per the document of 1097 appeared to be untenable. 86.
The Hon'ble High Court also considered the fact that the
Advocate receiver had filed report before the Sub Court that he did not take possession of A, B and C schedule properties in O.S.4/1965 and in spite of the same, the court directed the receiver to hand over possession of A, B and C schedule properties, as the properties in O.S.85/1971 and O.S.4/1965 (Kadakampally properties) were the same. The Hon'ble High Court also considered the fact that the receiver had filed report on 02.01.2009 before the Sub Court that he had handed over possession of properties after obtaining kaichit from one of the defendants (Abdul Rahman Kunju Nazarudeen) regarding 45.20 Acres, and that it was a false report by the receiver. The Hon'ble High Court found that the trial court directed the receiver to hand over the properties over which he had no possession and thereafter the receiver filed report that he handed over 45.20 Acres on obtaining kaichit. On the basis of
128
various inconsistent reports filed by the receiver, the Hon'ble High Court found that there is much substance in the contention raised by the petitioner's counsel in the O.P. 87.
The Hon'ble High Court also considered the fact that various
agreements for sale were executed by the legal heirs of Abdul Rahman Kunju including children of Muhammed Fathima and the sale consideration was 13.37 Crores and the portions of 45.50 Acres in thandapper account No.3587 and other thandapper accounts and it was found that the proposed vendees were not affluent enough to purchase the vast extent of 12.27 Acres of land and the proposed vendees as per the agreement were only real estate brokers and at least 60 Crores will be required to purchase 12.27 Acres considering the location of the property in the city. The fact that 108 apartments constructed by Confident group and 71 houses situated in the property was pointed out before the Hon'ble High Court. It was also found that the agreements for sale executed by Muhammed Fathima and her children (respondents 8 to 15, 17, 18 and 19 to 25) in the O.P. were not genuine and the same were executed with oblique motives. Petitioners in O.P. relied on the
129
report of Deputy Collector (Vigilance) and Revenue Secretary that the receiver does not have physical possession of the property in Kadakampally Village and the legal heirs of Abdul Rahman Kunju did not have possession to the properties in Kadakampally Village. 88.
After hearing the respective contentions of the parties, the
Hon'ble High Court made it clear that the court is not entering in any finding regarding any title to the properties and the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach before the civil court to establish title over the properties, if so advised. O.P.19462/13 and the connected O.P. were disposed on 28.03.2014 directing CBI investigation to the crime by registration of FIR in the matter of Kadakampaly properties, pursuant to 4 complaints, Exts.P31 to 34. It was also held that the findings and observations made in the Judgment was only for the purpose of deciding the issue whether investigation is to be handed over to the CBI or not and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the question of title to the properties. 89.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents that after completion of the CBI investigation, final report
130
was filed before CBI Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram in the matter. 90.
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
findings in Ext.B146 cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding the matter in issue involved in the present applications in view of the specific finding in the last page of the Judgment in Ext.B146. 91.
As a matter of fact, it is the petitioners who alleged that the
Kadakampally properties were under receivership. At the same time, they could not produce any document evidencing the fact that the receiver had taken possession of properties in Kadakampally Village. Exts.B147, 149 and 152 would reveal that the receiver did not take possession of Kadakampally properties and he had surrendered all other properties involved in the suit which was under receivership including properties in Edava, Navayikkulam, Varkala, Ayiroor, Chadayamangalam Villages etc. 92.
Some of the contesting defendants had filed suit for
declaration of title by making receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas as a party and the suits were filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and decrees were obtained as evidenced from Exts.B112 to B115
131
(O.S.Nos.386/09 and 415/09). None of the defendants contested the above the suits. The receiver also did not establish that the properties involved in those suits were cutsodia legis. 93.
Exts.B111, 123 and 124 reveal that a large extent of property
was acquired by the Government out of certain survey numbers in the Kadakampally properties and compensation was also paid to some of the contesting respondents and their predecessors who were the owners in possession of those properties. None of the legal heirs of Abdul Rahman Kunju contested the said proceedings or claimed that they were the owners of the respective properties acquired by the Government. 94.
Ext.B143 reveal that Muhammed Asharaf S/o Muhammed
Fathima filed W.P.(C) 13375/09 before the Hon'ble High Court and filed I.A.9583/10 in I.A.6119/10 seeking to recall the Common Judgment in W.P.(C)
Nos.4778/09
and
13375/09
obtained
by
Nazarudeen
and Jayakumar alleging that the order was obtained by exercising fraud before
the
Hon'ble
High
Court
with
the
motive
of
grabbing
Kaddakampally properties belong to his mother included in schedule
132
properties allotted to them in compromise decree in O.S.Nos.4/1965 and O.S.85/1971. 95.
Ext.B143(a), copy of the decree in A.S.51/73 (O.S.85/71)
attached to Ext.B143 reveal that O.S.85/1971 was permitted to be withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the parties in A.S.51/73 to effect partition of shares of properties allotted to 11 th defendant's group under Ext.A4 (pages Nos.39 and 40 in Ext.B143), Copy of CMP 3673/79 in A.S.118/73 of the Hon'ble High Court (Ext.B143(b)) reveal that Muhammed Fathima, Salma Beevi, Muhammed Abdul Khader, Sahura Beevi, Muhammed Khasim, Rukkiya Beevi (legal representatives of deceased defendant/ appellant) and others filed compromise in the appeal. Page No.46 of Ext.B143, in Paragraph 1, it was stated that Ext.A4 was signed by all the parties except 13 plaintiffs and 2 nd defendant in O.S.85/1971. Paragraph 2 in the same page reveal that 13 plaintiffs and 2nd defendant (legal heirs) did not sign Ext.A4 compromise. But they accept Ext.A4 and ratify the same and thereby the parties agreed to withdraw the appeals and suit, O.S.85/1971. Paragraph 3 reveal that though a group represented by defendants 3 to 22 who
133
signed Ext.A4 compromise and accepted it and acted it and subsequently dealt with properties on that basis, initially agreed to the compromise and later they refused to sign the petition. Thus page No.47 in Ext.B143 reveal that defendants 3 to 22 did not sign CMP No.3673/79. Ext.B143(c) is the Judgment in O.S.4/1965, a suit filed by Abdul Rahman Kunju Yusuf against Mytheen Kunju Abdul Rahman Kunju and others to remove the Karanavan of the Tharavadu. The plaint was amended including alternative prayer for partition and Ext.A4 compromise was submitted with prayer for recording the compromise. But the prayer was opposed by defendants 2, 5 and 6. The District Court where O.S.4/1965 was pending found that all the parties to the suit did not sign the compromise and as such, the compromise was not recorded. But the suit was permitted to be withdrawn and the suit was struck off from the file. 96.
Ext.B143(d) is the compromise petition filed in O.S.4/1965
which include the schedules. As per the compromise, C schedule was to be taken by 1st defendant, Mytheen Kunju Abdul Rahman Kunju. A schedule items were divided into three parts, Part Nos. I, II and III. As per clause 6, properties in Part I of A schedule were taken by 3 rd
134
defendant (Ayisha Ummal) absolutely and defendants 12, 55 and 56. Properties described in Part II had to be allotted to the 11 th defendant and children, Part III of A schedule had to be allotted to 5 th defendant absolutely. 97.
Clause No.15, Page No.63 in Ext.B143 reveal that some
properties in the several list there were outstanding mortgage and over some properties there were only mortgage right and those details were all well known to the several allottees and so they were not expressly mentioned in the list. Clause No.15 in Ext.B143(e) clearly reveal that out of the various items included in the schedule to Ext.A4 many properties were under outstanding mortgage. As per page No.65 of Ext.B143, the encumbrances in respect of Kadakampally properties shall be on the allottees of A schedule item Nos.1, 2 and 3. The same were mentioned in page No.67 last portion. But after schedule item No.2, it was mentioned that the right over Kadakampally properties shall be upon the allottees of A schedule item Nos.1 to 3. It is to be noted that in page No.78, it has been noted by the registry of the District Court that corrections
regarding
the
entries
relating
to
the
properties
in
135
Kadakampally Village were not seen attested. 98.
The contention of Muhammed Asharaf was that the
corrections were fraudulently made in the schedule and in fact the Kadakampally properties were not included in the schedule and it was absolutely allotted to his predecessors (Muhammed Fathima). The entries in page No.78 in Ext.B143(e) was of the year 1968 when the Judgment was pronounced in O.S.4/1965. 99.
The parties relied upon Ext.A4 in 1980 when the appeal and
suit were withdrawn by the parties on 20.02.1980. If there was any correction or objection to the schedule attached to Ext.A4 compromise, the same ought to have been raised before the Hon'ble High Court. 100. After withdrawal of suit, O.S.85/1971 and appeals and dismissal of O.S.4/1965, it can only be found that there was no effective adjudication regarding the title of the properties in both the partition suits as found by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C).19432/13. 101. The 3 sentences in Ext.B143(e) cannot be taken into account to come to the conclusion that the properties in Kadakampally Village were taken possession by the 1st defendant, his successors or the
136
receiver in O.S.85/1971 especially in view of the fact that the petitioners could not produce any documents evidencing the fact that the receiver had ever taken possession of the Kadakampally properties in O.S.85/1971. It can be found that the receiver himself had filed application in 1981 and sought to discharge him from receivership stating his old age as the reason. Nobody had any objection to the reports by the receiver and regarding audit reports. The petitioners have no case that any amount is due to be distributed from out of the amount if any, as per the audited accounts. As long as the parties do not have such a claim, there is no scope in ascertaining whether any amount is in deposit in the Sub Court enabling the parties to O.S.85/1971 to withdraw the same. 102. The reports obtained from Sub Judges and the records submitted by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram also reveal the fact that no records are available to show that the receiver had taken possession of Kadakampally properties at any point of time. 103. The receiver himself filed inconsistent reports and took different stands at various stages. He had appeared in the enquiry
137
conducted by the District Collector and had given statement that he did not take physical possession of the property. He took another stand that he had only taken symbolic possession. But the records do not reveal that the receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas or his predecessor had ever taken actual physical possession or symbolic possession of the Kadakampally properties. 104. Adv.Kunjukrishnan Potti, learned counsel for respondents 42 and 44, relied on Ext.B132. It was a report prepared by District Survey Superintendent which was submitted to the District Collector. It is revealed that District Collector gave direction to the District Survey Superintendent on 19.04.2014 to conduct a temporary survey to find out the irregularities in the revenue records in respect of 19 items of Kadakampally properties. On the basis of the temporary survey conducted, it was reported that 128 persons were in possession of a total extent of 39.80 Acres and out of the same 3.38 Ares was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. 2.02 Acres out of the above extent of 39.80 Acres lies as road. As per the list prepared on the basis of temporary survey conducted, the names of some of the contesting
138
respondents and others were shown as the persons in possession in respect of Sy.Nos.1240, 1241, 1286, 1288, 1287 and other items of properties. 105. Adv.Kunjukrishnan Potti representing 44th respondent and others mainly relied on Paragraph 6 of the plaint in O.S.4/1965 (Ext.B116) wherein the suit was filed against the 1st defendant, Karanavan seeking his removal alleging that he failed to take steps to redeem the superior mortgage (Melotti) right obtained in favour of the Tharavadu in respect of A schedule item Nos.455 to 473 (item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971) and thereby caused huge loss to the Tharavadu. According to the learned counsel, the inclusion of the sentence in Ext.A4 settlement submitted in O.S.4/1965 that the encumbrances in respect of Kadakampally properties will be on the allottees of A schedule item Nos.1 to 3 will also show that the mortgages were not redeemed. The learned counsel further relied on Exts.B117 to 121, the Judgment and decrees in O.S.245/1124, O.S.211/1950 and O.S.95/1968 in support of the same argument that the Kadakampally properties originally belong to Kuvakkara Madam and sale deeds were executed with direction to
139
redeem outstanding mortgage over the property. 8 th defendant was impleaded in O.S.245/1124 as he had obtained assignment of superior mortgage of 1097. The suit was decreed rejecting the contentions of 8 th defendant, assignee of 1097 superior mortgage. It was also contended that a suit for redemption was filed as O.S.95/1968 by auction purchasers of the property belong to Kuvakkara Madam and the suit was dismissed rejecting prayer for redemption by finding that the tenants were entitled to fixity of tenure. The above suits related to property in Sy.Nos.1232, 1236, 1238 and 1241 (plaint schedule item Nos.375, 376, 378 and 379). It was also argued that the right of plaintiff in suit filed by assignee/ mortgagee as O.S.1211/1950 was on the basis of a Will and it was also dismissed by holding that the plaintiff had no subsisting right of redemption. The learned counsel also relied on the Judgment in O.P.19462/13 of the Hon'ble High Court and argued that the above documents conclusively established the fact that the petitioners' predecessors never had possession to the Kadakampally properties. 106. Petitioners mainly relied on the reports filed by the receiver that he had taken possession of the properties and it was also argued
140
that the redemption period of the subsisting mortgage was 50 years plus 12 years for filing a suit for redemption as per the Law of Limitation of the East
While
State
of
Travancore
in
respect
of
redeeming
of
Ottikkuzhikkanam deed of 1097 (1922) and that even as per the transitional time of 7 years, after the enactment of Indian Limitation Act 1963 is taken, the parties had right of redemption even in 1971. The contention is that the properties became custodia legis in 1969 and as such the right of their predecessors continued. 107. The fact that a property is under receivership will not stop the running limitation period. The parties are at liberty to file suits for redemption or declaration as the case may with the leave of the court, which appointed the receiver, by making a receiver as a party to such suits. 108. The documents available do not reveal that the petitioners' predecessors exercised their right of redemption till date. The documents produced by the respondents such as the revenue records including the report prepared by the Revenue Secretary reveal that the contesting respondents and other persons are in possession on the basis of various
141
title deeds and Pattayam. It is also revealed that Muhammed Fathima filed appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the purchase certificate in SM 12/80 and the same is pending. 109. Adv.T.K.Thomas, the receiver is no more and the question of appointing a new receiver would arise only if the further management of the property, which was the subject matter of a suit (O.S.85/1971) is required at this stage. The learned counsel for 17 th respondent, Adv.V.Suresh brought to the notice of this court regarding the last two sentences in Paragraph 8 of the order dated 28.07.1969 appointing Adv.Muhammed Shafi as the receiver. The 1 st defendant had objected the receiver application contending that the parties were in possession of the properties as per Ext.A4 settlement of 1968. Learned counsel for 1st defendant had pointed out that the respective allottees of those items under Ext.A4 settlement were not willing to take possession of those items. According to the learned counsel for 17 th respondent, the 1st defendant was estopped from denying allotment as per Ext.A4 settlement of 1968 and he cannot come under the category of persons who were not willing to accept the allotment in Ext.A4. The order dated
142
28.07.1969 reveal that by accepting the submission of 1 st defendant, Sub Court appointed a receiver to take possession of only those items which are not in the possession of any of the parties before the court. The order reveal that the plaintiff did not want receiver to be appointed in respect of certain items (item Nos.121, 137, 138 and 146). The court found that the defendants were in possession of respective items, mentioned in their objections to the receiver application regarding items in their respective possession. 110. The order of appointment of receiver in 1969 and 1971 do not include the schedule of properties or the respective items of properties over which the receivership was ordered by the court. The petitioners could not produce the copies of objections filed by the contesting parties in the receiver application to prove the specific items of plaint schedule properties which were excluded from receivership. It can be found that the Kadakampally properties were not specifically included in the schedule to Ext.A4 and only 3 sentences are added regarding the liability/ encumbrances over Kadakampally properties that the same will be upon the allottees of A schedule item Nos.1, 2 and 3. Ext.A4 was not
143
part of the decree in O.S.4/1965 as the compromise was not recorded by the court. Even though the appeals and O.S.85/1971 were withdrawn with liberty to the parties in O.S.85/1971 to effect partition as per Ext.A4 of 1968, the Kadakampally properties were not specifically scheduled to Ext.A4 even at the time of withdrawal of the suit in 1980. As per Ext.A4, the 1st defendant; the predecessor of petitioners obtained only C schedule and he did not get any allotment in A schedule. Kadakampally properties were not included in plaint C schedule. As such, 1 st defendant did not obtain Kadakampally properties as per Ext.A4. 111. The receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas filed an argument note on 24.06.2017 through Adv.J.Harikumar. As per the argument note, receiver, Adv.T.K.Thomas had only endorsed the report of Muhammed Shafi and continued to take income from the properties which were taken possession by Adv.Muhammed Shafi and he surrendered the properties as directed by the High Court. 112. As a matter of fact, there was no receivership in respect of the plaint schedule properties in O.S.4/1965. But some of the parties filed application for release of properties and it seems that the receiver,
144
Adv.T.K.Thomas was directed to surrender possession of the properties in O.S.4/1965 and later the court realized the mistake and directed the receiver to retain the same. But the properties in O.S.4/1965 were never under receivership. Even though Kadakampally properties were included in that suit, there is no question of taking possession of any of the items or surrendering possession thereof by any receiver in O.S.4/1965. 113. As per the argument notes, receiver filed application to the court and effected publication of notice on 08.02.2009 in newspapers regarding the receivership over Kadakampally properties and at the same time he had filed I.A.4690/14 for discharging him from receivership. 114. The documents produced by the receiver along with the argument notes were marked as Exts.B157 to B162. The same receiver filed another argument notes on 22.08.2017 stating that some of the sharers filed application, I.A.2739/08 in O.S.4/1965 and he was directed to surrender properties and he also effected publication in Malayala Manorama daily dated 05.02.2009 regarding Kadakampally properties that the same were under custodia legis. It was also admitted that
145
O.S.Nos.374/2009, 375/2009, 386/2009, 414/2009, 415/2009 and 416/2009 were filed against him and others for declaration of title and possession and he filed written statement in those cases contending that the properties were custodia legis. 115. The stand taken by the receiver who was aged 87 years in 2014 was inconsistent and it is quite clear that he was not even aware of the fact whether he had taken physical possession of Kadakampally properties (item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971). The records available in this court do not reveal that either Adv.Muhammed Shafi or Adv.T.K.Thomas had taken possession of plaint schedule item Nos.373 to 391 in O.S.85/1971. 116. At the same time, records reveal that certain other items of properties
in
Chadayamangalam,
Edava,
Navayikkulam,
and
Kulathooppuzha
Varkala, Villages
were
Ayiroor, under
receivership. The statement of accounts filed by the receiver which were audited in 1980 – 1981 produced by 44 th respondent also reveal that no income from Kadakampally properties were taken by the receiver up to 1981. Ext.B157 order of appointment of receiver reveal that “receiver
146
was appointed for plaint A and B schedule items which are now not in the possession of any parties to the suit. In respect of other properties, a commissioner will be deputed to assess the mesne profits”. It was also directed that the plaintiffs will apply for issue for a commission to assess the mesne profits. In the same order, it was stated that Adv.Muhammed Shafi was appointed as the receiver and commissioner and he will be assisted by two more persons of his choice. 117. The plaintiffs and defendants objected appointing a receiver in respect of properties in their possession in 1969. No records are available in this court and no records could be produced by the petitioners to show that the receiver appointed in O.S.85/1971 had taken any steps to identify the properties which were not in the possession of the respective parties and had taken steps to obtain physical possession of those properties. 118. The records produced reveal that Kadakampally properties were under the category of 'Sree Bhandaravaka' of Travancore kingdom and the same was entrusted to Kuvakkara Madam, a Brahmin family for cultivating paddy. Due to passage of time certain mortgages were
147
created in respect of some of the items. The fact that the properties originally belong to Kuvakkara Madam has been admitted by the petitioner, Rukkiya Beevi in I.A.815/2019 while filing counter to I.A.4/2021. She contended that the receiver took possession of the property in 1969 before the expiry of period of limitation for redemption and further contended that the period of redemption was available up to 1983. 119. As long as no materials are available before this court to come to the conclusion that the Kadakampally properties were under receivership in O.S.85/1971, there is no circumstance warranting appointment of a new receiver as sought for in I.A.815/2019. 120. The records also reveal that some of the contesting respondents filed suits in respect of different properties forming part of the Kadakampally properties by making the receiver as a party and obtained Judgments declaring their title. The petitioner in I.A.4/2021 sought to decide the question whether the predecessors of the petitioners in I.A.Nos.4645/2014 and 815/2019 had any right, title or interest in the Kadakampally properties. As a matter of fact, O.S.85/1971
148
was a mere suit for partition among the members of a Muslim joint family and the same stands withdrawn and there is no executable decree in respect of “Kadakampally properties”. There are materials available before this court to show that the parties who rely upon Ext.A4 settlement obtained delivery of some of the properties after 1981. It was already found that a partition deed executed by the legal heirs of Abdul Rahman Kunju in 2006 and the subsequent creation of false thandapper account Nos.1602 and 3587 were found by the Secretary, Revenue to be not in accordance with the transfer of registry rules and it was the subject matter of the case registered by CBI and now pending before the CBI Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The title obtained by respondent 56 to 58 in SM 12/80 is now under challenge before the Appellate Authority. Even though it was submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that certain claim petitions were filed in the suit and the Hon'ble High Court directed that all the aggrieved parties be implead in I.A.1742 and to decide the rights claimed by those persons, the petitioners in I.A.1742 did not take any further steps in that application, as the receiver, T.K. Thomas passed away subsequently.
149
121. As no suit is pending before this court to adjudicate any claim petitions or for deciding any respective title of the parties, the scope for deciding the question as sought for in I.A.4/2021 to enter into a finding regarding the title of the petitioners' predecessors do not arise in this case. 122. As the records available in this court do not reveal receivership over the Kadakampally properties specifically mentioned in I.A.4645/2014 (Sy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1279, 1280, 1282 to 1288, 1388 and 1409) and as the receiver in O.S.85/1971 never took possession of the Kadakampally properties, there is no requirement to decide the question of title of the predecessors of the petitioners. Therefore, it is found that I.A.4/2021 can be disposed of by finding so. But at the same time, no materials are available before this court to prima facie come to the conclusion that petitioners' predecessor, i.e., 1st defendant in O.S.85/1971 had ever obtained possession to Kadakampally properties by virtue of Ext.A4 or otherwise.
150
123. As the Kadakampally properties were not under receivership, there is no circumstance warranting appointment of new receiver as sought for in I.A.815/2019 and to direct the receiver so appointed to take steps to evict the encroachers or to demolish the alleged unauthorised constructions as sought for in I.A.4645/2014. Hence, point Nos.(i), (iii) and (iv) are found against the petitioners. Point No.(v) is found accordingly. 124. In the above circumstances, it is found that the receiver in O.S.85/1971 can be discharged with effect from 16.12.2014, the date of filing of I.A.4645/2014. Point No.(ii) is found accordingly. 125. Point No.(vi):- In view of findings in point Nos.(i) and (iii), there is also no circumstance warranting measurement of Kadakampally properties by appointing a commissioner and surveyor as sought for in I.A.1147/2019. Hence, I.A.1147/2019 is liable to be dismissed and I do so. Point No.(vi) is also found against the petitioners. 126. Point No.(vii):- In view of the findings in point Nos.(i) to (vi), I.A.Nos.4645/2014, 815/2019, 1147/2019 are dismissed by discharging
151
the receiver with effect from 16.12.2014 and I.A.4/2021 stands disposed by finding that 1) Petitioners' predecessors had no possession to “Kadakampally properties” at the time of appointment of receiver. 2) The Kadakampally properties were not under receivership in O.S.85/1971. 3)
Receivership in respect of other items of properties taken
possession by receiver in O.S.85/1971 is deemed to have come to an end by the withdrawal of O.S.85/1971 of Sub Court. 4) The receiver, T.K. Thomas appointed in O.S.85/1971 shall be deemed to have been discharged with effect from 16.12.2014, the date of filing of I.A.4645/2014. The security amount, if any deposited by Late Adv.T.K.Thomas, shall be released to his legal heirs. 5) The other items of properties which were under receivership in O.S.85/1971 are deemed to have been vested on the respective owners/ occupiers/ assignees, from whom possession was taken by the court receivers in O.S.85/1971.
152
6)
Respective petitioners shall pay cost of the proceedings to
respondent Nos.3, 12, 19, 29 and 47. Others shall bear their costs of the proceedings. Dictated to the C.A, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me through Video Conference on this the 20 th day of November, 2021 Sd/LILLY. K ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE -IV
APPENDIX Documents produced by Adv. Shibu Kumar Ext.A1
Certified copy of Common Judgment dated 31.07.1972 in O.S. 85/71 and O.S.89/71 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.A2
Certified copy of Decree dated 31.07.1972 in O.S.85/71 and O.S.89/71 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.A3
Certified copy of Order dated 23.01.2009 in I.A.2739/2008 in O.S.4/1965 of II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.A4
Certified copy of inventory dated 15.10.2010 prepared by Dy.S.P. Crime Records Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram Rural
Ext.A5
Certified copy of final report in Crime No.47/2007 of Varkala Police Station dated 12.01.2011
153
Ext.A6
Certified copy of Order dated 18.02.2011 in OP(TP) 487/2010 of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.A7 series
Certified copy of counter affidavit filed by 6 th respondent in I.A.15374/14 in WP(C) 21562/2014 of Hon’ble High Court and annexures
Ext.A8
Photocopy of Order dated 28.07.1969 in I.A.1094/1969 in O.S.14/1969 of Sub Court, Attingal
Ext.A8(a)
Order dated 05.11.1971 in IA 6145/61. Documents produced by Adv. K.A. Ashraf Certified copy of Judgment dated 07.07.2004 in OP 1506/2002 filed by Avva Ummal and Others against T.K.Thomas, Official Receiver
Ext.A9 Ext.A10 series
Certified copy of OP 922/2017 with annexures filed before the Hon’ble High Court
Ext.A11
Certified copy of Judgment dated 14.03.2017 in OP(C) 922/17 of the High Court.
Exhibits for the respondents:Documents produced by Adv. Kowdiar Mohandas Ext.B1
Photocopy of gift dated 17.02.1959 in favour of Kamalakshy and Balakrishnan by Kesavan
Ext.B2
Photocopy of gift deed No.2171 dated 29.09.1070 executed by Kamalakshy in favour of Balakrishnan
Ext.B3
Photocopy of exchange deed dated 20.03.1974 executed by Rema and Mohan Chand in favour of Kuttan Pillai
Ext.B4
Photocopy of Will No.35 dated 30.07.1986 executed by Kutan Pillai
154
Ext.B5
Photocopy of special Vakalath dated 14.06.1988 executed by Viswalekshmi Amma and Sukumari Amma in favour of Mohanakumaran Nair
Ext.B6
Photocopy of sale deed No.436 executed by Sarada Amma and Others in favour of Mohanan dated 04.02.1989
Ext.B7
Certified copy of sale deed No.2935 dated 07.08.2003 executed by Mohanan in favour of Deepa
Ext.B8
Photocopy of sale deed No.4165 dated 06.11.2003 executed by Balakrishnan in favour of Rudrani Amma
-Ext.B9
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 18.04.2012 in the name of V.Deepa
Ext.B10
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 21.05.2012 in the name of Rudrani Amma
Ext.B11
Certified copy of sale deed dated 02.02.1950 executed by Parameswaran Namboothiri in favour of Kamalakshi
Ext.B12
Certified copy of sale deed No.1082 dated 23.06.1955 executed by Kamalakshi in favour of Kesavan
Ext.B13
Original sale deed No.3534 dated 24.09.1979 executed by Sarojini Amma in favour of Kuttappan Nair
Ext.B14
Certified copy of gift deed No.2106 dated 23.09.1953 executed by Kochukrishna Pillai in favour of Sarojini Amma
Ext.B15
Certified copy of sale deed No.2372 dated 23.11.1954 executed by Shambu Potty
Ext.B16
Location sketch prepared by Village Offcer, Kadakampally (2 in Nos.)
Ext.B17
Extract of Thandapper account of Sy.1285
155
Ext.B18
Possession certificate dated 11.01.2006 in favour of Deepa
Ext.B19
Certificate of encumbrance on property dated 10.09.2017 and 18.07.2014
Ext.B20
Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.568/1974
Ext.B21
Location certificate No.313/2006
Ext.B22
Extract of field register (not final)
Ext.B23
Attested copy of Kerala Gazette dated 24.05.1983
Ext.B24
Location sketch prepared by Village Officer, Kadakampally
Ext.B25
Extract of Thandapper account of Sy.1285/1 and 2
Ext.B26
Possession certificate dated 11.01.2006 in the name of Deepa
Ext.B27
Location certificate No.321/2006
Ext.B28
Certificate of encumbrance on property dated 10.09.2017
Ext.B29
Certified copy of document No.3897/81 executed by Kuttappan Nair in favour of Molly George
Ext.B30
Certified copy of document dated 09.05.1983 in favour of George Kutty Thomas executed by Prem Chand and Others through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B31
Photocopy of property tax receipt dated 26.08.2011 in the name of George Kutty Thomas Documents produced by Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan
Ext.B32
Photocopy of Settlement Register of Sy.1203 and 1204 of Kadakampally Village
Ext.B33
Copy of sale certificate in O.S.No.38/1120
156
Ext.B34
Report dated 24.08.1954 O.S.No.38/1120
submitted
by
Amin
in
Ext.B35
Photocopy of certified copy of exchange-cum-release deed No.2313/1960
Ext.B36
Photocopy of sale deed No.2019/1968 executed by Narayanan Potty and Others in favour of Adv. K.P. Ramachandran Nair
Ext.B37
Photocopy of exchange deed No.2882/1969 dated 30.12.1969 executed by Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai in favour of Prem Chand and Mohan Chand
Ext.B38
Photocopy of purchase certificate dated 08.08.1980 of the Land Tribunal in favour of Prem Chand and Others in respect 6 Acres 34 Cents
Ext.B39
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 21.01.2006
Ext.B40
Photocopy of location certificate
Ext.B41
List of 51 purchasers
Ext.B42
Copy of enquiry report dated 01.07.2013 of Deputy Collector, Vigilance (South Zone)
Ext.B43
Proceedings of March 2017 of District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B44
Photocopy of sale deed No.2617/2008 dated 19.06.2008 executed by Praveen in favour of Ashraf
Ext.B45
Copy of report of Senior Superintendent, Inspection and Audit
Ext.B46
Photocopy of statement of T.K. Thomas recorded by Deputy Collector, Vigilance on 28.06.2013
Ext.B47
Photocopy of enquiry report by Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Kerala as directed by Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) 19462/2013
Ext.B48
Photocopy of sale deed No.4122 dated 31.08.2005 executed in favour of P.A. Muhammed on behalf of Dhananjayan Unnithan through Power of Attorney holder
157
Ext.B49
Photocopy of sale deed No.2430 dated 26.05.2004 executed in favour of Philip and Pothen by Prem Chand, Rema and Mohan Chand through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B50
Photocopy of building permit dated 21.07.2004
Ext.B51
Copy of tax receipt dated 30.05.2013 in the name of Pothen and Jerry Philip
Ext.B52
Copy of building tax receipt dated 10.11.2014
Ext.B53
Copy of receipt dated 23.11.2015 issued by KSEB
Ext.B54
Copy of receipt dated 23.04.2014 issued by Water Authority
Ext.B55
Copy of receipt dated 18.12.2014 issued by Water Authority
Ext.B56
Invoice of KSEB dated 26.03.2015
Ext.B57
Copy of building permit dated 19.07.2006
Ext.B58
Copy of building tax receipt dated 22.12.2014
Ext.B59
Copy of property tax receipt dated 20.11.2012 in the name of Zen Varghese and Ritsy Varghese
Ext.B60
Photocopy of sale deed No.181/2006 dated 12.01.2006 executed in favour of Zen Varghese and Ritsy Varghese on behalf of Dhananjayan Unnithan through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B61
Copy of ownership certificate dated 22.02.2008
Ext.B62
Invoice of KSEB dated 03.12.2015
Ext.B63
Copy of building tax receipt dated 29.05.2015
Ext.B64
Copy of possession certificate of October, 2006
Ext.B65
Copy of property tax receipt dated 08.07.2010 in the name of P.A.Muhammed
158
Ext.B66
Photocopy of sale deed No.4684/2004 dated 22.11.2004 executed in favour of Prameela Devi by Prem Chand, Rema and Mohan Chand through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B67
Copy of property tax receipt dated 12.07.2013 in the name of Prameela Devi
Ext.B68
Copy of ownership certificate dated 23.03.2007 in the name of Prameela Devi
Ext.B69
Copy of property tax receipt dated 10.12.2004 in the name of Prameela Devi
Ext.B70
Photocopy of sale deed No.4125/2005 dated 05.09.2005 executed in favour of Chandrasekhara Pillai and Saraswathi Devi by Prem Chand, Rema and Mohan Chand through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B71
Copy of tax receipt dated 11.03.2011 in favour of Chandrasekhara Pillai and Saraswathi Devi
Ext.B72
Copy of building permit dated 07.12.2005 in favour of Chandrasekhara Pillai and Saraswathi Devi
Ext.B73
Copy of ownership certificate dated 23.03.2007 in favour of Chandrasekhara Pillai and Saraswathi Devi
Ext.B74
Copy of building tax receipt in favour of Chandrasekhara Pillai and Saraswathi Devi
Ext.B75
Copy of bill dated 19.12.2015 issued by Water Authority
Ext.B76
Copy of invoice of KSEB dated 04.05.2015 in favour of Chandrasekhara Pillai
Ext.B77
Copy of sale deed No.2019/68 dated 17.09.1968 executed by Raman Potty and Others in favour of Adv.K.P.Ramachandran Nair
Ext.B78
Photocopy of sale deed No.997/2006 dated 04.03.2006 executed in favour of Ananthakrishna Ramachandran Kurup by Prem Chand, Rema and Mohan Chand through Power of Attorney holder
159
Ext.B79
Copy of delivery kaichit in O.S.No.38/1120
Ext.B80
Copy of building permit dated 23.08.2006 in the name of Ananthakrishna Ramachandran Kurup
Ext.B81
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 03.07.2014 in the name of Ananthakrishna Ramachandran Kurup and Babitha
Ext.B82
Invoice of KSEB in the name of Ananthakrishna Ramachandran Kurup
Ext.B83
Copy of invoice of Water Authority
Ext.B84
Photocopy of Settlement Register of Sy.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1280, 1282, 1297, 1286, 1288, 1388, 1409 of Kadakampally Village
Ext.B85 series
Copy of property tax receipt (2 in Nos.) dated 21.05.2012 in favour of Prem Chand, Rema and Mohan Chand
Ext.B86
Photocopy of lay out plan dated 03.04.2006
Ext.B87
Copy of certificate of encumbrance on property dated 12.08.2015
Ext.B88
Copy of report of enquiry conducted by Deputy Inspector General, Registration
Ext.B89
Photocopy of sale deed No.1948/2005 dated 31.03.2005 executed in favour of Jayamohan by Prem Chand, Rema and Mohan Chand through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B90
Copy of property tax receipt dated 11.04.2015 in the name of Jayamohan
Ext.B91
Copy of building permit dated 01.06.2005 in the name of Jayamohan
Ext.B92
Copy of property tax receipt dated 30.10.2013 in the name of Jayamohan
Ext.B93
Photocopy of sale deed dated 05.09.2005 executed by Premchand, Rama B Nair and Mohanchand through Power of Attorney holder in favour of K.K.K.Nair.
Ext.B94
Photocopy of property tax dated 12.07.2012 in favour of K.K.K.Nair and Sandhya Nair
160
Ext.B95
Residential certificate dated 19.11.2007 in the name of K.K.K.Nair and Sandhya Nair
Ext.B96
Building tax receipt dated 21.05.2015 in name of K.K.K.Nair and Sandhya Nair
Ext.B97
Copy of demand notice dated 24.11.2015 by KSEB to K.K.K.Nair
Ext.B98
Invoice dated 19.12.2015 by Water Authority to K.K.K.Nair Documents produced by Adv.Vinodh Kumar
Ext.B99
Copy of sale deed No.1336/2004 in favour of Aniyan Kunju executed by Prem Chand and Others through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B100 series
Photocopy of building tax receipt dated 03.02.2017 and 05.05.2004 (2 in Nos.) in favour of Aniyan Kunju
Ext.B101
Photocopy of property tax receipt dated 05.05.2004 in favour of Aniyan Kunju
Ext.B102
Copy of electricity bill
Ext.B103
Copy of building permit dated 12.05.2014 in the name of Aniyan Kunju
Ext.B104
Photocopy of possession certificate dated 27.05.2005 in the name of Aniyan Kunju
Ext.B105
Original Power of Attorney executed by Aniyan Kunju in favour of Francis John on 24.01.2017
Ext.B106
Photocopy of sale deed No.516/86 dated 14.02.1986 executed by Santha Kumari in favour of Mohanadas
Ext.B107
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 16.02.2009 in the name of Mohanadas
Ext.B108
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 17.08.2021 in the name of Aniyan Kujnu
Ext.B109
Photocopy of building tax receipt dated 17.08.2021
Ext.B110
Receipt issued by KSEB on 08.06.2021 in the name of Aniyan Kunju
161
Documents produced by Adv.Bahuleyan Ext.B111
Copy of land acquisition reference 110/90 (records)
Ext.B112
Certified copy of Judgment dated 10.11.2016 in O.S.No.386/2009 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B113
Certified copy of Decree dated 10.11.2016 in O.S.No.386/2009 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B114
Certified copy of Judgment dated 10.11.2016 in O.S.No.415/2009 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B115
Certified copy of Decree dated 10.11.2016 in O.S.No.415/2009 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram Documents produced by Adv.Kunju Krishnan Potty
Ext.B116
Certified copy of plaint in O.S.4/1965 of the District Court
Ext.B117
Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.245/1124 of the District Court
Ext.B118
Certified copy of Decree in O.S.245/1124 of the District Court
Ext.B119
Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.211/1950 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B120
Certified copy of Decree in O.S.95/1968 of IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B121
Certified copy of Judgment dated 11.08.1975 in O.S.95/1968 of IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B122
Copy of Gazette dated 27.05.1980
Ext.B123
Notice issued U/S.9(3) of Land Acquisition Act to Chandrasekharan
Ext.B124
Extract of field register in LAC 145/80 of Sy.1241/2
162
Ext.B125 series
Original tax receipts (6 in Nos.) in favour of Nalini, Janardhanan Chettiyar, Chandrasekhar and Shanti
Ext.B126
Certified copy of document No.2072/1125 dated 15 Dhanu 1125 in favour of Kamalamma Pillai
Ext.B127
Certified copy of sale deed No.5368/1124 in favour of Narayana Pillai and others
Ext.B128
Original encumbrance certificate dated 06.05.1994
Ext.B129
Original encumbrance certificate dated 23.02.1988
Ext.B130
Photocopy of sale deed No.6073 dated 17.03.1988
Ext.B131
Certified copy of sale deed No.2372 dated 23.11.1954 in favour of Krishna Pillai
Ext.B132
Copy of temporary sketch and proforma prepared by District Survey Superintendent as per direction of District Collector
Ext.B133
Photocopy of Power of Attorney executed by Thomas Paul and Ann in favour of Simon George dated 25.02.2017
Ext.B134
Photocopy of sale deed No.487/2006 dated 31.01.2006 in favour of Thomas Paul executed by Prem Chand, Rama and Mohan Chand through Power of Attorney holder
Ext.B135
Photocopy of agreement dated 24.01.2006 executed by Thomas Paul and Integrated Housing Developers
Ext.B136
Copy of building permit dated 15.03.2006
Ext.B137
Certified copy of Power of Attorney document No.35/1101 dated 25th Karkidakam 1101
Ext.B138
Certified copy of document No.1/1106 dated 5th Chingam 1106
Ext.B139
Photocopy of settlement deed No.1587/57 executed by Madhavan in favour of Visalakshy and Others
Ext.B140
Photocopy of document No.3516 dated 22.09.1979 in favour of Janardhanan Chettiyar executed by Mohanan and Nalini
163
Ext.B141
Certified copy of settlement deed No.1273/1972 dated 22.05.1977
Ext.B142
Certified copy of sale deed No.5368 dated 20 Midhunam 1124 executed by Sankaran and Others with readable copy
Ext.B143
Certified copy of Writ Petition No.13375/2009 of the High Court of Kerala
Ext.B143(a)
Copy of decree in A.S.51/73 (O.S.85/71)
Ext.B143(b)
Copy of CMP3673/79 in A.S.118/73
Ext.B143(c)
Copy of Judgment in O.S.4/1965 of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B143(d)
Copy of compromise petition filed in O.S.4/1965
Ext.B143(e)
Copy of schedule of properties attached to B143(d)
Ext.B144
Certified copy of document No.1858/84 dated 28.06.1984 executed by Shirley and Others in favour of Shanti
Ext.B145
Certified copy of sale deed No.627/76 executed by Shanti, Shirley and Shyji in favour of Sulochana
Ext.B146
Certified copy of Judgment dated 28.03.2014 in WP(C) 19431 and 19462 of 2013 of High Court of Kerala
Ext.B147
Photocopy of Audit report in O.S.85/71
Ext.B148
Photocopy of auction notice
Ext.B149 series
Photocopy of report of receiver (2 in Nos.)
Ext.B150
Copy of statement of account by Muhammed Haneefa, (2nd defendant) Receiver appointed by the High Court in CMA. 88/1973
Ext.B151
Original Newspaper, Kerala Kaumudi dated 22.04.2017
Ext.B152
Copy of kaichit executed in favour of Receiver in O.S.85/71
164
Documents produced by Adv.V.Suresh Ext.B153
Copy of property tax assessment index sheet dated 06.12.2008
Ext.B154
Photocopy of tax receipt dated 30.07.2014 and 07.09.2016 in the name of Ann Paul and Thomas Paul Document produced by Adv. M.R. Anandakkuttan
Ext. B155
Photocopy of proceedings dated 12.04.2017 of District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram Document produced by Adv. D.O.Sankunthaladevi
Ext. B156
Photocopy of document No.5334 of 1124 executed by Sankaran and Nangeli Antharjanam, Kuvakkara Madam in favour of Adv.T.M.Chennan Document produced by Adv.T.K.Thomas, Receiver
Ext. B157
Copy of order in IA. 1094 dated 24.05.1969 in OS.14/1969 of Sub Court, Attingal.
Ext.B158
copy of order in IA.6145/71 in OS.85/1971 dated 05.11.1971 of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Ext.B159
Copy of notice issued by T.K.Thomas (Receiver OS.85/1971 dated 04.02.2009)
Ext.B160
Copy of paper publication (Malayala Manorama) dated 08.02.2009)
Ext.B161
Copy of application dated 17.10.2013 submitted by T.K.Thomas, Advocate Receiver to the Assistant Police Commissioner Sanghumugham.
Ext.B162
Copy of Receipt dated 22.10.2012 No.2864 of Assistant Police Commissioner Sanghumugham.
Court Exhibits:C1
Attested photo copy of Audit report received from Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
C2 series
Attest photo copy of Receiver’s report
165
C2(a)
Photo copy of report submitted by Adv.T.K.Thomas, Receiver.
C2(b)
Copy of mahazer dated 02.07.1972 prepared by T.K.Thomas, Receiver
C2(c)
Photo copy of notice 04/02/2009 published by the receiver.
C3
Original report filed by Commissioner on 30.01.2018
Id/ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE -IV SK. Compd:-
//True Copy//
By Order Sd/SHERISTADAR
Adv
TABLE 75(a) 1
2
3
4
5
6
RESPONDENT
EXTENT OF PROPERTY
SY.NO.
TITLE DEED
DOCUMENTS TO PROVE POSSESSION
JUDGMENT/ DECREE/ PROCEEDINGS, if any
R3 Thomas and Leelamma Thomas
5.42 Ares
1281/1/2
R4 Jayamohan
7 Cents
1286
Sale deed dated 31.03.05 Exts.B85 to B93 (Ext.B89)
R9 Chandrasekhara Pillai
7 Cents
1286
Sale deed No.4125/05 dated Exts.B71 to B76 15.09.2005 (Ext.B70)
R10 K.K.K.Nair
7 Cents
1286
Sale deed No.4124/05 dated Exts.B94 to B98 05.09.2005 (Ext.B93)
R11 Prameela Devi
15 Cents
1282/7
Sale deed No.4684/04 dated Exts.B67 to B69 22.11.2004 (Ext.B66)
R12 Jany George and Donny George
7 Cents
1182
2007
R13 Aniyan Kunju
25.02 Cents
1282
Sale deed No.1336/04 dated Exts.B100 to 13.04.2004 (Ext.B99) B108 to B110
R14 Elsy Praveen
B104,
1867/05
R15 P.A. Muhammed
5 Cents
1286
Sale deed No. 4122/05 dated Exts.B61 to B65 31.08.2005 (Ext.B48)
R16 Ananda Krishnan
17 Cents
1286
Sale Deed No.997/06 dated 04.03.2006 (Ext.B78)
Exts.B80 to 82
R17 Thomas Paul
15( 10 + 5) Cents 1286, 1291
Sale deed No.487/06 (Ext.B134)
Exts.B153, B154, B133 to B136
75(b) R18 Pothen
8.06 Cents
1282
R19 Pradeep
2.83 Ares
1281/1/14
R20 Zen Varghese
10 Cents
1286
R24 Rajesh Viswanathan
8 Cents
1282
R27 Nizamudeen
12 Cents
1286/2
R29 Sreevardhanan (Sivapriyan) R30 Krishnan Nair
25.5 Cents
Sale deed No.2430/04 (Ext.B49)
Exts.B50 to 54
Sale deed No.181/06 dated 12.01.2006 (Ext.B60)
Exts.B55 to B59
1238
Sale deed No.622/74
(Ext.B156) Document No.5334/1124
1287
Sale deed No.3334/82
Exts.B114, B115
Sale deed No.2935 dated 07.08.2006 (Ext.B7)
Exts.B4 to B6, B18, B24 LAC Nos.182/87 to B26, B28 and 183/87
R34 Deepa
O.S.415/09
R36 Rudrani Amma
1285
Sale deed No.4165/2003 (Ext.B8)
Exts.B10 to 12, B16, B17 LAC 179/1981 and B19
R45 Molly George
1287
Exts.B29 and B30
Exts.B31, 13 toB15 Sale deed Nos.3709/79, 3507/88, 3183/88, 4600/79
R38 Sainul Arifeen
38.5 Cents
1279
Sale deed No.783/89
R40 Avaneenthranathan
39.5 Cents
1287
Sale deed Nos.2734/04, 2735/04
R41 Saleem
31.5 Cents
1284
Sale deed No.3678/00
R42 Vijayan Nair R44 Janardhanan Chettiyar
O.S.386/09 Exts.B117, B118 Exts.B116 to B152
LAC 145/80, O.S.Nos.245/1124 , 2107/73, 38/1120, 95/68, 85/71, 13/20, 4/65, 211/1950, O.P.19462/13
75(c) R43 Mohanan Chettiyar
33.5 Cents
R46 Sasikala
8 Cents
1279/4, 1279/3
Sale deed No.1334/95
487/94, 232/55, 1233/58, 3011/67, 885/76
R47 Mohandas
70 Cents
1238/1
Sale deed No.516/86 (Ext.B106)
Ext.B107
9.71 Ares
1285
2972/83
R48 Sasidharan
Sale deed No.2233/00
17.5 Cents
334/83 Patta 839
42 Cents
1557/84 Patta 12839
14 Cents
3028/18 Patta 12843
10.5 Cents
Sale deed No.666/80 Patta 9700
6.5 Cents
5255/97
O.S.414/09, 2107/13
O.S.386/09
R49 Sethunanthan R53 Rajendran, Valsala
35 Cents
1279/3, 1279/3-2
Sale deed No.4542/01
1149/69, 588/98, 1233/58, 3091/67, 1149/09, 88/98, 4592/09
R26 Balu
Exts.B32 to B47
R56 Premchand.R.Nair
Ext.B42
R57 Rama B Nair
Ext.B45
R58 Mohan Chand R Nair
Ext.B46, B47, B146
O.S.38/1120