## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2014/12TH CHAITHRA, 1936**
**RP.No. 125 of 2014 ()**
**-----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 498/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 08-06-2011**
**------------------**
## **PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS :**
**--------------------------------------------**
## **1. KUNHAN**
**S/O.VELU, AGED 68 YEARS THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## **2. SREEDHARAN**
**S/O.VELU, AGED 65, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## **3. MADHAVI**
**W/O.LATE GOPALAN, AGED 69 YEARS THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
**4. VASANTHY, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE GOPALAN, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU,**
**42, VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## **5. VALSA**
**AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.LATE GOPALAN, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU, 42, VARAYAL POST PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## **6. MAHILAMANI, AGED 60 YEARS,**
- **D/O.LATE GOPALAN, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
**7. MOHANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPALAN, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
**...2/-**
**RP.No. 125 of 2014 () -2-**
## **8. SREEJA, AGED 35 YEARS,**
- **D/O.GOPALAN, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## **9. REJI, AGED 40 YEARS,**
**S/O.LATE GOPALAN, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU 42-VARAYAL POST, PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
**BY ADVS.SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE SRI.JAI GEORGE SANDESH RAJA K.**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :**
**-------------------------------------------------**
## **1. BHARGAVI**
**D/O.VELU, AGED 47 YEARS PARAYIL VEEDU, THEKKUMTHARA POST VENGAPPALLY AMSOM, VYTHIRI TALUK-673121.**
## **2. RAMAN**
**S/O.VELU, AGED 53 YEARS, THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. (*DIED)**
***LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED**
**---------------------------------------**
## ***3. AMMUKUTTY, W/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## ***4. ARAVINDAN, S/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
- ***5. VALSAN, S/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
- ***6. RATNAVALLI, D/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
***7. VIMALAMMA, D/O. RAMAN THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
**...3/-**
**RP.No. 125 of 2014 () -3-**
***8. KANTHAMANI, D/O. RAMAN THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## ***9. OMANA, D/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
- ***10. RAJU, S/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
- ***11. SREEJA, D/O. RAMAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
## ***12. RATNAMMA, W/O. VIDYADHARAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
- ***13. ANISH, S/O. VIDYADHARAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
- ***14. VINISH, S/O. VIDYADHARAN**
**THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
***15. SUNISH, S/O. VIDYADHARAN THEVARTH MALAYIL VEEDU PAYAM VILLAGE, EDOOR, PAYAM POST - 670704 PERIYA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.**
***LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R2 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 15 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 2/4/2014 IN IA NO. 563/2014.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW R3 TO R15 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Mn**
**...4/-**
**RP.No. 125 of 2014 ()**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :**
**ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF GIFT DEED DATED 2-9-1958 NO. 2629/1958 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KODUTHURUTHY.**
## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.S. TO JUDGE**
**Mn**
## **P.BHAVADASAN, J.**
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appl.No. 107 of 2014 & R.P. No. 125 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 02[nd] day of April, 2014
## **O R D E R**
This is a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the day of 929 days in filing the review petition.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is pointed out that the review petition had to be filed on or before 09.07.2011. It is claimed that the counsel engaged by the petitioners, who conducted their case before this Court, did not inform them about the dismissal of the second appeal and they could not file the review petition within the stipulated time. It is further stated that unless the delay is condoned and the review petition is heard on merits, irreparable loss and injuries may cause to the petitioners.
3. Apart from the fact that there is no convincing, cogent and sufficient reasons shown to condone the delay.
C.M.Appl.No. 107 of 2014 & R.P. No. 125 of 2014
**-2-**
In order to ascertain whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, this Court thought it fit to go into the merits of the case.
4. The main contention now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this Court erred in not taking note of the fact that once a purchase certificate is issued in favour of a party unless its veracity is challenged, it could not be ignored and that aspect has not been noticed by this Court while disposing of the second appeal. It is further contended that the appellants have been in possession of the property for a considerable period of time.
5. This Court, while disposing of the second appeal, had noticed that defendants 1 to 3, deceased Gopalan and the plaintiff are the children of one Velu. On an assessment of the materials, this Court found that none of them had set up independent rights and they traced their claims under Velu. The property acquired by the said Velu devolved on
C.M.Appl.No. 107 of 2014 & R.P. No. 125 of 2014
**-3-**
his legal heirs who obtained purchase certificate. This Court also found that there were no independent plea of ouster to claim exclusive right over the property by any of the parties and even if any purchase certificate was obtained by any one of them had enured to the benefit of co-owners.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Ramakke and Others v. Gopi and Others [2011 (4) KLT SN 80] wherein, it was held that once the purchase certificate is issued unless its veracity is challenged, it cannot be ignored.
7. It is well settled by now that when once a coowner obtained the purchase certificate, he is in the possession of the property only as a co-owner and the purchase certificate enures to the benefit of all the coowners. The mere fact that the purchase certificate was obtained by any one of the co-owners does not make the
C.M.Appl.No. 107 of 2014 & R.P. No. 125 of 2014
**-4-**
sole owner of the property especially when he does not set up an independent right of tenancy over the property. In the light of the said proposition, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
8. It is thus found that even if the delay is condoned and the matter is heard on merits, there is little merit in the review petition. Having found that there are no merits in the review petition, it will be an idle exercise to condone the delay.
This petition is accordingly dismissed so is the review petition.
**P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE**
ds
