Fathima Kunju v Abdul Rehmankutty and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Thomas P. Joseph
- Judgment Date
- 2013-01-18
- Court Decision / Holding
- Original Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as provided under the law.
- Final Disposition
- Original Petition dismissed without prejudice to the right to challenge by appeal
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- FATHIMA KUNJU
Respondents
- ABDUL REHMANKUTTY
- BEEPATHU
- JAMEELA
- HASSAN KUNJU
- JALALUDHEEN KUNJU
- SALIM
- THANKA KUTTY
- ABOOBACKER
- ABDUL KALAM
- RASHEED
- REHIYANATH
- SULEKHA (DIED) NEDUKA THARAYIL,PERINGALA KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- KUNJU MUTHU
- FATHIMA
- SHERIEF
- RAMLATH
- NAZEEMA
- ZEENATH
- IRSHAD
- RASHEEDA
- RASHEEDA (DIED) HOUSE NO. 30,NEAR MUTHIRAPARAMBU MOSQUE RAMANKULANGARA P.O,KOLLAM - 691 001.
- ANSAR
- NAJEEB
- NAZEEB
- MUHAMMED KUNJU, MUTHUMEERAN PILLAI,OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI,KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- MARIYAM BEEVI
- MUTHUMEERAN PILLAI ABDUL KHADER (DIED) OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- PEERUM MUHAMMED SAINABA SALIM MANZIL,PULIMATHU MURI,MADATHARA FROM OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KAHDER SHAMS, OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KAHDER ABDUL SALAM OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER VAHID OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER NABEESA OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER SALIM OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KHADERE SAHEERA OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER JASEELA (DIED) OORAYIPARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- AHAMMED PILLAI REHIYANATH BEEVI PANDAKASALAYIL,PRAKKULAM MURI,THRIKADAVOOR MURI KOLLAM - 691 001.
- AHMMED PILLAI HASSAN KOYA, PANDAKASALAYIL,PRAKKULAM MURI,THRIKADAVOOR MURI KOLLAM - 691 001.
- AHAMMED PILLAI HARIFA BEEVI PANDAKASALAYIL,PRAKKULAM MURI,THRIKADAVOOR MURI KOLLAM - 691 001.
- CHINNAKANNUR HAMEED KANNU, KIZHAKKE VEETIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- CHINNAKANNU KOYAKKUTTY, KIZHAKKE VEETIL,KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER KULUSUMMA PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER AHAMMEDU KUTTY PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502.
- ABDUL KHADER HANEEBA KUNJU PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502
- ABDUL KHADER RUKIYA BEEVI, PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502
- ABDUL KHADER SAINABA KUNJU PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502
- ABDUL KHADER ALI AKBER PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502
- ABDUL KHADER ISMAIL KUTTY PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502
- ABDUL KHADER BADER KUNJU PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -690 502
- MEERA SAHIB MUHAMMED KUNJU THERUVATHU VEEDU,CHAVAKKAD,KOTTUNGAL MURI MANNANTHALA AMSAM,PONNANI TAUK (DIED) 679577.
- MEERA SAHIB BEEPATHUMMA THERUVATHU VEEDU,CHAVAKKAD,KOTTUNGAL MURI MANNANTHALA AMSAM,PONNANI TAUK (DIED) 679577.
- MEERA SAHIB AASYA BEEVI, THERUVATHU VEEDU,CHAVAKKAD,KOTTUNGAL MURI MANNANTHALA AMSAM,PONNANI TAUK (DIED) 679577.
- MEERA SAHIB AAMINA KUNJU THERUVATHU VEEDU,CHAVAKKAD,KOTTUNGAL MURI MANNANTHALA AMSAM,PONNANI TAUK (DIED) 679577.
- HANEEFA KUNU SULBATHU BEEVI PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALLY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -679 577.
- HANEEFA KUNJU NISSA PERETHU VEEDU,CHERAVALLY MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE -679 577.
- MUHAMMED SHERIEF MALIKAYIL,FLAT NO.5,VANDANAM P.O ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.
- MUHAMMED SHAJI, VALAYIL VEEDU (MUKKALA),KAYAMKULAM MURI KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502
- JIYAMUDEEN S/O. MUHAMMED SHAJI,VALAYIL VEEDU (MUKKALA) KAYAMKULAM MURI,KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE - 690 502.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
- • SRI.A.R.DILEEP
- • SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
Case Synopsis & Summary
Fathima Kunju seeks a supplementary final decree in O.S. No.25 of 1962, Kayamkulam, based on Ext. P3 assignment of 53/200 shares to defendants 18–22. The dispute traces to a preliminary decree passed on 16.03.1966 in the Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam, later modified by the Additional Sub Court, Mavelikkara in A.S. No.102 of 1966, with a final decree dated 30.03.1971. The petitioner claims to be an assignee from the legal representatives of defendants 18 to 22 and moved I.A. No.1299 of 2012 to pass a supplementary final decree, which was dismissed by the Munsiff (impugned order). The petitioner contends that she is entitled to a supplementary decree in respect of her shares under Ext. P3 and seeks the court’s intervention. The respondent-bank of arguments, as reflected in the judgment, emphasizes that the remedy for challenging such an order lies in an appeal rather than in continuing proceedings for a supplementary decree. The High Court, relying on precedents—Perumal Vaidyar and Others v. Devi and Others (1991 KLJ 65) and Janardhanan v. Chandramathy (1996 KLT 545)—holds that even without a formal decree, the order’s remedy is by appeal, and thus the Original Petition cannot be entertained. The court dismisses the Original Petition but allows the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by appeal. The decision clarifies the proper forum for relief in such succession disputes and preserves the appellate route for remedy.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that she is the assignee from the legal representatives of defendants 18 to 22 in O.S. No.25 of 1962. She moved I.A. No.1299 of 2012 seeking a supplementary final decree in respect of 53/200 shares allotted to defendants 18–22 under Ext. P3, on the strength of an assignment. She asserts that the final decree dated 30.03.1971, in combination with Ext. P3, entitles her to a supplementary decree. The applicant prays for passing a supplementary final decree in favour of her claim and to have her rights adjudicated accordingly. She relies on the chain of title arising from the transfer and assignment of shares as per Ext. P3.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the Original Petition is not maintainable for obtaining a supplementary final decree. They argue that the remedy lies in filing an appeal against an order refusing to pass a supplementary decree, in light of established precedents. They rely on the proposition that an appeal is the proper remedy rather than re-litigation in Original Jurisdiction to obtain a supplementary final decree, and that the absence of a drawn-up decree does not preclude challenging the order by appeal (citing Perumal Vaidyar and Others v. Devi and Others and Janardhanan v. Chandramathy).
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perumal Vaidyar and Others v. Devi and Others | 1991 [1] KLJ 65 | Positive | Cited to support that the remedy for challenging an order refusing to pass a final decree lies in appeal; the court follows this authority. |
| Janardhanan v Chandramathy | 1996 [2] KLT 545 | Positive | Used to confirm that even without a decree, it may be open to challenge the order by appeal; reinforces the appellate route over the Original Petition. |
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 Fathima Kunju v Abdul Rehmankutty and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.