High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeOriginal Petition is dismissed of the Original ...

Illikkal Thankam v. Cholappurath Vrindadevi and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) No. 787 of 2013
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date
2013-02-26
Court Decision / Holding
Original Petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition
Original Petition is dismissed of the Original Petition.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Illikkal Thankam

Respondents

  • Cholappurath Vrindadevi
  • Cholappurath Saheena
  • Cholappurath Vivek
  • Cholappurath Sreejith
  • Illikkal Joseph
  • Karotte Thottatil Bavachan Thomas
  • Illikkal Thomas
  • Illikkal Avira
  • Illikkal Valsamma
  • Illikkal Marykutty
  • Thekkayil John
  • Kavungal Thazha Thankamma
  • Panamattathil Jain
  • Vattukalathil Thressiamma
  • Cheruserikkunnel Chacko
  • Illikkal Joseph
  • Poovatholi Mary
  • Perumpayil Joseph
  • Perumpayil Chinnamma
  • Perumpayil Mathew
  • Perumpayil Chacko
  • Perumpayil Mariyam
  • Perumpayil Joseph
  • Perumpayil Thressia
  • Naranath Joy Jacob
  • Valsamma
  • Omana
  • Joseph Thekkayil
  • Puthan Parambil Sebastian
  • Puthan Parambil Rosamma
  • Puthan Parambil Thressiamma
  • Leela
  • Rajeesh
  • Sreeleesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. A. Augustine (Areekattel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Original Petition (OP(C) No. 787 of 2013) filed by Illikkal Thankam, the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 49 of 1999, challenging the Sub Court, Vadakara’s dismissal of I.A. 375/2013. The Sub Judge had decreed Rs. 17,50,000 in favor of the respondents (legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff) with interest at 6% per annum, holding the entire property liable under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. Petitioner sought to amend the decree to limit liability to the proportionate advance sale consideration attributable to her own property, arguing that the original liability was miscalculated and that the amendment did not involve a clerical error. The trial court rejected I.A. 375/2013. Appearing counsel argued that the petitioner’s liability should correspond to her actual share in the 29 acres sold by 21 persons; reliance was placed on the principle that courts may correct errors under Secs. 151 and 152 of the CPC, citing Velayudhan Nadar v. Janaki Karthi (2011 [2] KLT 149). The High Court, however, found no clerical or arithmetical error in the decree and held that the relief sought would amount to revisiting the core issue of joint and several liability, which is not permissible through Sec.152 or Sec.151. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the original decree stood. The judgment emphasizes that amendment is confined to correcting formal errors, not substantive liability, and that the proper remedy lies in challenging the judgment itself.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property ActSection 152 of the Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Joint and several liability
  • Power of court to correct errors under Sec. 151/152 CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel argued that the liability of the petitioner should be limited to the proportionate share of the advance sale consideration for the property actually sold; that the decree wrongly fixed joint and several liability over the entire 29 acres; the remedy sought was amendment under Sections 152/151 CPC, based on the proposition that clerical errors could be corrected, citing Velayudhan Nadar v. Janaki Karthi (2011 [2] KLT 149). The petitioner contends that the alleged error is not clerical or arithmetical and cannot be corrected under 152/151; the proper remedy is to challenge the judgment in O.S. No. 49 of 1999 or to file an appeal.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the decree fixing joint and several liability and creating a charge over the entire property reflects the court's decision and cannot be corrected by amendment; the remedy lies in challenging the judgment or seeking appeal; no basis to invoke Sec. 151/152 for correcting liability.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Velayudhan Nadar v. Janaki Karthi2011 [2] KLT 149Mentioned OnlyCited to discuss the possibility of correcting errors under Sec. 151/152; the court ultimately did not rely on this for relief and dismissed the petition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Illikkal Thankam v. Cholappurath Vrindadevi and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/7TH PHALGUNA 1934** ## **OP(C).NO. 787 OF 2013 (O)** **--------------------------------------I.A. NO.375 OF 2013 IN O.S. NO.49 OF 1999, SUB COURT, VADAKARA** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **ILLIKKAL THANKAM, AGED 53 YEARS W/O.ILLIKKAL JOSEPH, KAVILUMPARA AMSAM & DESAM KAVULUMPARA P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)** **RESPONDENT(S):** **------------------------** **1. CHOLAPPURATH VRINDADEVI,, AGED 68 YEARS W/O.CHOLAPPURATH SAHADEVAN RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN COLONY CHEVAYOOR AMSAM & DESAM, KOZHIKODE.** **2. CHOLAPPURATH SAHEENA,, AGED 51 YEARS D/O.CHOLAPPURATH SAHADEVAN RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN COLONY CHEVAYOOR AMSAM & DESAM, KOZHIKODE.** **3. CHOLAPPURATH VIVEK,, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.CHOLAPPURATH SAHADEVAN RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN COLONY CHEVAYOOR AMSAM & DESAM, KOZHIKODE.** **4. CHOLAPPURATH SREEJITH,, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.CHOLAPPURATH SAHADEVAN RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN COLONY CHEVAYOOR AMSAM & DESAM, KOZHIKODE.** ## **O.P(C) NO.787 OF 2013** **5. ILLIKKAL JOSEPH, S/O.KURUVILA, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **6. KAROTTE THOTTATIL BAVACHAN THOMAS, S/O.GARVASIS, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 515.** **7. ILLIKKAL THOMAS, S/O.KURUVILA, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **8. ILLIKKAL AVIRA, S/O.VARKEY, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **9. ILLIKKAL VALSAMMA, D/O.ILLIKKAL AVIRA, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **10. ILLIKKAL MARYKUTTY, D/O.ILLIKKAL AVIRA, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **11. THEKKAYIL JOHN, S/O.DEVASYA, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **12. KAVUNGAL THAZHA THANKAMMA, D/O.NARAYANAN, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **13. PANAMATTATHIL JAIN** **D/O.ABRAHAM, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **O.P(C) NO.787 OF 2013** **14. VATTUKALATHIL THRESSIAMMA, D/O.JOSEPH, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **15. CHERUSERIKKUNNEL CHACKO, S/O.ISSAC, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **16. ILLIKKAL JOSEPH, S/O.ILLIKKAL AVIRA, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **17. POOVATHOLI MARY, D/O.VARKEY, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **18. PERUMPAYIL JOSEPH, S/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **19. PERUMPAYIL CHINNAMMA, D/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **20. PERUMPAYIL MATHEW, S/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **21. PERUMPAYIL CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **22. PERUMPAYIL MARIYAM, D/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **O.P(C) NO.787 OF 2013** ## **23. PERUMPAYIL JOSEPH,** ## **S/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **24. PERUMPAYIL THRESSIA,** **D/O.CHACKO, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **25. NARANATH JOY JACOB,** **KAVILUMPARA P.O., KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 513.** ## **26. VALSAMMA,** ## **D/O.VARKEY, THEKKAYIL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **27. OMANA,** ## **D/O.VARKEY, THEKKAYIL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **28. JOSEPH THEKKAYIL,** **S/O.VARKEY, THEKKAYIL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **29. PUTHAN PARAMBIL SEBASTIAN, S/O.ELLICKOCH, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **30. PUTHAN PARAMBIL ROSAMMA, D/O.ELLICKOCH, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** **31. PUTHAN PARAMBIL THRESSIAMMA, D/O.ELLICKOCH, KAVILUMPARA P.O. KAVILUMPARA AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 513.** ## **O.P(C) NO.787 OF 2013** ## **32. LEELA,** **W/O.LATE RAJAN, ERAVATH KANDY HOUSE NEAR MAVILUMPARA U.P. SCHOOL, MOILOTHARA P.O. KUTTIADY, VADAKARA, PIN - 673 508.** ## **33. RAJEESH,** **S/O.LATE RAJAN, ERAVATH KANDY HOUSE NEAR MAVILUMPARA U.P. SCHOOL, MOILOTHARA P.O. KUTTIADY, VADAKARA, PIN - 673 508.** ## **34. SREELESH,** **S/O.LATE RAJAN, ERAVATH KANDY HOUSE NEAR MAVILUMPARA U.P. SCHOOL, MOILOTHARA P.O. KUTTIADY, VADAKARA, PIN - 673 508.** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **O.P(C) NO.787 OF 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.375/2013 IN O.S.NO.49/99 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA.** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.** **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.375/2013 IN O.S.NO.49/99 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA.** **EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.S.NO.49/99 OF THE SUB COURT, VADAKARA.** **EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.11.01.1994.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.** **==================================== O.P(C) No.787 of 2013 ==================================== Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner, the 2[nd] defendant in O.S. No.49 of 1999 of the Sub Court, Vadakara challenges dismissal of I.A. No.375 of 2013. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 are legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Learned Sub Judge has passed a decree for recovery of money from petitioner and other defendants. The amount decreed is Rs.17,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Respondents 1 to 4 filed execution petition and proceeded against property of petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner filed I.A. No.375 of 2013 on the trial side to amend the decree praying that liability of petitioner be limited to the proportionate advance sale consideration payable with respect to the property of petitioner. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. 3. Learned counsel submitted that liability of petitioner is only to pay that part of sale consideration payable for the extent of property he had agreed to sell to the deceased plaintiff. It is also argued, relying on the decision in **Raman Nadar** O.P(C) No.787 of 2013 -: 2 :- ## **Velayudhan Nadar v. Janaki Karthi** (2011 [2] KLT 149) that even in cases not coming under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“for short, “the Code”), it is within the power of court to correct errors of court under Sec.151 of the Code if prejudice is caused to the litigant resulting in injury. 4. Assuming so, question is whether there is any error committed by the court which could be corrected by way of an amendment under Sec.152 or even Sec.151 of the Code? 5. As per the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, the original plaintiff was allowed to recover the advance sale consideration petitioner and others had received for sale of a total extent of 29 Acres belonging to 21 persons including petitioner and other defendants. For sale of the said 29 Acres, certain amount was received by the petitioner and others as advance without stipulating what exactly is the sale consideration payable for each item of property or the proportionate amount in the advance received. No attempt was made in the trial court to show what exactly is the share of petitioner in the advance sale consideration. Trial court passed a decree for recovery of the amount making all the defendants (including petitioner) jointly and severally liable and holding that the entire property will bear a charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. It O.P(C) No.787 of 2013 -: 3 :- is clear that it is not a case of clerical error or arithmetical mistake in the judgments or decree or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission which is required to be corrected as prayed for in I.A. No.375 of 2013 under Sec.152 or even under Sec.151 of the Code. Prayer made in I.A. No.375 of 2013 is not within the realm of Sec.152 or even under Sec.151 of the Code as it goes to the core issue concerning liability. It involves correctness of the decision as to joint and several liability of petitioner and other defendants. Proper remedy available to the petitioner was to challenge the judgment and decree in O.S. No.49 of 1999 casting joint and several liability on petitioner and other defendants and creating charge over the entire property for the entire amount decreed if at all petitioner has a case that making him and his property jointly and severally liable for the entire amount is not correct legally or factually. Therefore the court below was right in dismissing I.A. No.375 of 2013. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Original Petition is dismissed. ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.** vsv