Alavi Haji v. Muhammed Haneefa and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. Jayachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2023-10-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- The High Court held that I.A.833/2018 seeking correction of the Final Decree ought to have been allowed. Ext.P4 was set aside, and the matter remitted to the trial court to consider and pass orders in I.A.833/2018 in accordance with law and with the observations in this judgment. If the petitioner’s purchase of shares is undisputed and proved by documents, there would be no prejudice to other parties in modifying the decree accordingly. The judgment also clarifies a correction: the reference to O.S.252/2018 is corrected to O.S.146/1999 as per post-judgment orders. The Original Petition is disposed of with these directions.
- Final Disposition
- Original Petition disposed of with directions to remand I.A.833/2018 to the trial court for consideration in accordance with law and this judgment.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ALAVI HAJI
Respondents
- MUHAMMED HANEEFA
- MOIDEENKUTTY
- NASAR
- IBRAHIM
- KADEEJA (D/O MOIDEEN HAJI)
- KADEEJA (D/O AHAMMEDKUTTY)
- SHAHUL HAMEED
- SUHARA
- UMMUSALMA
- MARIYAMU
- MUHAMMED
- RAMLA
- SIHAB
- JIHAD
- IPPLIKKAT KUNHIKADIYA
- KOYAMU
- KUNHEERUMMA (DIED)
- IYYAYAKUTTY (D/O MOIDEENKUTTY)
- PATHUMMAKUTTY (D/O MOIDEENKUTTY)
- MARIYAKUTTY (D/O MOHAMMED HAJI)
- ABDUL WAHAB P (LR)
- ABDUL LATHEEF P (LR)
- ABDUL MAJEED (LR)
- ABDUL HAMEED (LR)
- ABDUL KAREEM (LR)
- IYYATHUMMU P (LR)
- KADEEJA P (LR)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P.BABU KUMAR
- • SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
- • SRI.VISHNU BABU
Case Synopsis & Summary
Alavi Haji, the petitioner, is the 3rd respondent in Final Decree proceedings FDIA 1788/2001 in O.S. No.252/2018 before the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. Before the preliminary decree was passed, the shares of respondents 6 and 7 were purchased by the petitioner, a fact not noticed while passing the preliminary decree or in the final decree. Consequently, the final decree allotted those shares to respondents 6 and 7 instead of transferring them to the petitioner, despite documentary title proof. The petitioner moved I.A.833/2018 under Section 152 CPC seeking correction of the final decree to reflect these transfers. The Munsiff dismissed Ext.P4 on 11.12.2019. The High Court notes that the petitioner produced title deeds evidencing the purchase of the shares and that the transfers among defendants should be accounted for at the time of final allotment. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision, Niyamat Ali - Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co operative Society Ltd. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 225), to support the corrective relief. The court proceeded notwithstanding non-appearance of respondents, and held that the petition should have been allowed. It set aside Ext.P4, remitting I.A.833/2018 to the trial court to pass orders in accordance with law and this judgment, concluding that if the purchase of the shares by the petitioner is undisputed, correcting the decree would not prejudice other parties. The judgment also notes a postscript correction regarding the reference to O.S.252/2018 (later corrected to O.S.146/1999).
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the preliminary decree should account for transfers among defendants at the stage of final allotment. He relies on documentary title showing purchase of shares from respondents 6 and 7 and argues the final decree incorrectly allocated those shares to them. He cites Niyamat Ali - Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co operative Society Ltd. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 225) to support corrective relief under CPC Section 152 and seeks correction of the final decree.
Contentions of Respondents
No appearance or recorded arguments; court notes lack of appearance from respondents.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Niyamat Ali - Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co operative Society Ltd. & Others | AIR 2008 SC 225 | Positive | The Supreme Court decision was relied upon by the petitioner and used by the Kerala High Court to support the corrective relief under Section 152 CPC in final decree proceedings. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Alavi Haji v. Muhammed Haneefa and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.