Kozhummal Puthiayapurayil Pathumma v. Rabiya, Ayisha, Suhara, Sarumma, Hasar, Haseeb and Ashik and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
Judgment Date: 2025-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KOZHUMMAL PUTHIYAPURAYIL PATHUMMA

Respondents

RABIYA
AYISHA
SUHARA
SARUMMA
HASAR
HASEEB
ASHIK

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
• V.A.SATHEESH

Counsels for Respondents

• G.GIREESH
• MATHEW KURIAKOSE
• J.KRISHNAKUMAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition suit filed by the plaintiff, the daughter of Amina Umma, seeking a partition of 19 ½ cents of land among co-owners. The 1st defendant, Pathumma, contested on three main fronts: that the plaintiff is not her sister, that the plaint schedule property is not identifiable, and that the 1st defendant holds title through Ext. B4 Purchase Certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that Ext. B4 Purchase Certificate identified the property as belonging to Pathumma. The First Appellate Court reversed, holding that Ext. B4 cannot bind the other co-owners since it was obtained without notice. On admission, counsel argued that Ext. B4 constitutes conclusive proof of tenancy in Pathumma by virtue of Section 72(K) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Land Tribunal proceedings (Ext. B3). The High Court, after analyzing arguments, finds that while Ext. B4 was issued without notice to co-owners, the fundamental principle under Kerala law is that a co-owner’s Purchase Certificate benefits all co-owners. It cites Vannathi Valappil Janaki and others v. Puthiya Purayil Paru and others (1986 KHC 505) for this proposition. The Court concludes there is no substantial question of law, affirms the appellate order, and dismisses the Regular Second Appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 72(K) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

When a co-owner obtains a Purchase Certificate, it enures the benefit of all the other co-owners.
Vannathi Valappil Janaki and others v. Puthiya Purayil Paru and others, 1986 KHC 505 — principle that a co-owner obtaining a Purchase Certificate benefits all co-owners.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the 1st defendant has exclusive possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of Ext. B4 Purchase Certificate; Ext. B4 is treated as conclusive proof of tenancy rights under Section 72(K) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act; the Land Tribunal proceedings (Ext. B3) support the tenancy claim. The trial court’s dismissal is challenged, and the appellant argues that co-ownership rights cannot be defeated by a certificate issued without notice to other co-owners.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext. B4 is not binding on other co-owners since it was issued without notice; the identity of the plaint schedule property is challenged; the plaintiff’s pedigree and co-ownership status are disputed; the trial court’s findings and the appellate court’s reasoning on notice and binding effect are crucial to the partition claim.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vannathi Valappil Janaki and others v. Puthiya Purayil Paru and others	1986 KHC 505	Positive	Cited as a well-settled principle that a co-owner obtaining a Purchase Certificate enures the benefit to all co-owners.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2024 IN AS NO.2 OF 2016 OF ``` ``` SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2015 IN OS NO.18 OF 2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1/DEFENDANT NO.1:`** ``` KOZHUMMAL PUTHIYAPURAYIL PATHUMMA AGED 77 YEARS ``` ``` D/O AMINA UMMA, KOZHUPPATTIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, CHUZHALI.P.O, CHUZHALI AMSOM, NIDUVALOOR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670142 ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.T.MADHAVANUNNI V.A.SATHEESH ``` ``` 2 TO 8: ``` - **`1 KOZHUPPATTIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL RABIYA, AGED 50 YEARS`** ``` W/O USSAIN, KOZHUPPATTIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, CHENGALAYI.P.O, CHENGALAYI AMSOM, PARIPPAYI DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 631 ``` ``` RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS ``` ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2JAFFER ``` ``` AGED 42 YEARS ``` ``` S/O MARIYAM, KOZHUPPATTIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, TRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA.P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 141 ``` ## **`3 AYISHA`** ``` AGED 40 YEARS ``` ``` D/O MARIYAM, KOZHUPPATTIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, TRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA.P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBARAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 141 ``` ``` 4SUHARA AGED 54 YEARS ``` ``` W/O MUSTHAFA, KOZHUPPATTIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, NIDIYENGA.P.O, NIDIYENGA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 631 ``` ``` 5SARUMMA AGED 60 YEARS ``` ``` W/O LATE MUHAMMED, NIDIYENGA.P.O, NIDIYENGA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 631 ``` ``` 6HASAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O LATE MUHAMMED, NIDIYENGA.P.O, NIDIYENGA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 631 ``` ``` 7HASEEB AGED 39 YEARS S/O LATE MUHAMMED, NIDIYENGA.P.O, NIDIYENGA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 631 ``` ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8ASHIK AGED 34 YEARS S/O LATE MUHAMMED, NIDIYENGA.P.O, NIDIYENGA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 631 ``` ``` BY ADVS. G.GIREESH MATHEW KURIAKOSE J.KRISHNAKUMAR ``` ``` THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : ``` ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** 1. The 1[st] defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is the daughter of one Amina Umma, to partition the plaint schedule property having an extent of 19 ½ cents of land. As per the plaint allegations, on the death of Amina Umma, the property devolved upon her children - the plaintiff, 1[st] defendant, 4[th] defendant, late Mariyam (mother of defendants 2 and 3) and late Muhammed (husband of 5[th] defendant and father of defendants 6 to 8). Since the parties are co-owners, the properties are liable to be partitioned among them. 2. The 1[st] defendant contested the suit by filing a Written Statement contending, _inter alia,_ that the plaintiff is not the sister of the 1[st] defendant. The plaint schedule property is not ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` identifiable. The 1[st] defendant obtained Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate with respect to the plaint schedule property. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the plaint schedule property belonged to the 1[st] defendant as per Ext.B4 purchase certificate. 4. The plaintiff filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decree in the suit and passing a Preliminary Decree for partition holding that the Ext. B4 Purchase Certificate is not binding the other parties in the suit, since it was obtained without notice to them. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Adv.Sri.Madhavanunni V.T. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 1[st] defendant has been in exclusive possession of the plaint ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` schedule property on the strength of Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate. When Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate was issued in favour of the 1[st] defendant its a conclusive proof of earlier tenancy in her favour and the title of the 1[st] defendant in view of the Section 72(K) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal issued Ext. B4 Purchase Certificate as per Ext. B3 proceedings in which the right of tenancy of the 1[st] defendant was considered and a finding is entered that there is oral Kuzhikkanam in favour of the 1[st] defendant and on account of the fixity of the tenancy Purchase Certificate was granted to her. 7. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the defendant raised three contentions opposing the prayer for partition. First is that the plaintiff is not the sister of the 1[st] defendant. ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` Second is that the plaint schedule property is not identifiable. Third is that the 1[st] defendant is the title holder. Even though the 1[st] defendant contended in the Written Statement that the plaintiff is not the sister of the 1[st] defendant, it is not stated that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Amina Umma and the other siblings are not the sisters and brothers of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff produced documents to show that she is the daughter of Amina Umma, and the Trial Court found that she is the daughter of Amina Umma. At the appellate stage, in view of the evidence, the 1st defendant did not press the first contention. The second contention is with regard to the identity of the plaint schedule property. In the written statement, the defendant also claimed title over the very same plaint schedule property having an extent of 19 ½ cents of land in R.S.A. No. 22/6. In such a case, there could not be any dispute with respect to the identity of the **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` plaint schedule property. Lastly, the contention of the 1[st] defendant is the title on the strength of the Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate. 9. defendant is Admittedly, on the death of Amina Umma, the 1[st] one of the legal heirs along with the other parties in the suit. Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate was issued on the basis of Ext.B3 proceedings. From Ext.B3 proceedings, it is seen that the documents relied on by the 1[st] defendant to obtain Patta are the title documents of Amina Umma. It would show that the 1[st] defendant is not having any independent right over the property, apart from the rights of Amina Umma. The 1[st] defendant obtained the Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate without notice to the other co-owners of the plaint schedule properties. In view of the said fact, Ext.B4 Purchase Certificate is not binding on the other co-owners also. In view of the withdrawal of the first contention, the 1[st] defendant is **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:27037 ``` ``` RSA NO. 484 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` also one of the co-owners of the plaint schedule property. It is well settled by the decision of this Court in **Vannathi Valappil Janaki and others v. Puthiya Purayil Paru and others (1986 KHC 505)** , that when a co-owner obtains Purchase Certificate, it shall enure the benefit of all the other co-owners. The First Appellate Court correctly appreciated the pleadings and evidence in the matter and arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere. No substantial question of law arises in the matter. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. **Sd/-** **M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE** mus