High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-20Remand order set aside; appeals allowed to be h...

Premalatha v. Maheen and others

Case / Petition Number:FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2022-12-20
Court Decision / Holding: Remand order set aside; both FAO 20/2022 and FAO 22/2022 are allowed to proceed on merits in accordance with Order 41 CPC Rules 23, 23A, 24, and the cited authorities. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 23/01/2023 for disposal on merits. FAO (RO) 25/2022 will stand dismissed as not pressed.
Final Disposition: Remand order set aside; appeals allowed to be heard on merits; FAO (RO) 25/2022 dismissed as not pressed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Premalatha

Respondents

Maheen
Rejeena
Sivaprasad
Ganesh
Vijayakumar
Padmakumar
Chandrika
Vinod Chithu
Resmeendra
Suprabha
Suhurth Raj
Udayakumar
Divithlal
Suja
Subha
Ambili
Rejitha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G.P. Shinod
• Govind Padmanaabhan
• Ajit G Anjarlekar
• Atul Mathews

Counsels for Respondents

• G.S. Reghunath
• Meena A.
• Jithin Saji Isaac
• K.J. Saji Isaac
• Elizabeth Varkey
• Ajeesh Emmanuel
• Shamsudeen O.K.
• T. Krishnanunni
• Vinod Ravindranath
• K.C. Kiran
• M.R. Mini
• M. Devesh
• Ashwin Sathyannath
• Anish Antony Anathazhath
• Thareeq Anver K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, presided by Justice P. Somarajan, delivered judgments on 20 December 2022 in three First Appeal from Order Remand matters: FAO (RO) Nos. 20/2022, 22/2022 and 25/2022, arising from a common remand order issued by the Sub Court, Nedumangad, in connection with OS 648/2008 and AS 15/2019. The appellant-plaintiff Premalatha contends that the remand order, based on alleged non-compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, is unwarranted since the will in question is admitted and its due execution is not disputed. The respondents/defendants include Maheen, Rejeena and several others, with numerous lawyers listed on both sides. The court noted that it is well settled that an admitted document need not be proved, and suggested that the First Appellate Court may be directed to address all questions pertaining to the dispute and Issues omitted at trial under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A and 24 CPC. On scrutiny, the court found the remand unnecessary and set aside the impugned order, directing the first appellate court to proceed to decide the appeals on merits in consonance with CPC directives and the authorities cited (Gopalakrishnan v. Ponnappan; Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta). Consequently, the appeals are to be decided on merits; FAO (RO) 25/2022 is dismissed as not pressed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, 24 of the Civil Procedure Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

An admitted document need not be proved.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant Premalatha submits that the remand under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is unwarranted since the will is admitted and its due execution is not disputed. She contends that an admitted document needs no proof and that the First Appellate Court should be directed to decide all issues on merits under Order 41 Rules 23, 23A, 24 CPC, with the will’s validity not being a trial-issue given its admitted status. The appellate process should be guided by CPC provisions to ensure a full merits adjudication.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that remand was necessary to ensure compliance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act in establishing the will’s due execution, and that issues which arose should be considered thoroughly at the appellate stage. They argue that proofs and attestations surrounding the will must be explored to satisfy legal requirements before merit-based disposition. They emphasize adherence to established evidentiary and procedural norms as a precondition to decide on merits.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gopalakrishnan v. Ponnappan and others	2021 (5) KHC 548	Positive	Cited as the legal position to be followed in relation to remand and merits disposal; the court explicitly references this authority as part of its reasoning.
Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta	1988 KHC 883	Positive	Cited as an Apex Court decision relied upon and followed in the course of the judgment.

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 Premalatha v. Maheen 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 P.SOMARAJAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 FAO (RO) NO. 20 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2022 IN AS. NO.15/2019 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2018 IN OS 648/2008 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF’S COURT,NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:`** ``` PREMALATHA, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O. DEVAKI, RESIDING AT V.V. BHAVAN, POOCHEDIVILA, KATTAKADA, POONJAMCODE MURI, KATTAKADA P.O, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572. BY ADVS. G.P.SHINOD GOVIND PADMANAABHAN AJIT G ANJARLEKAR ATUL MATHEWS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 18/ DEFENDANTS`** ## **`7,8 AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5 & 9 TO 14:`** ``` 1MAHEEN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.HASANARU PILLAI, RAJEENA HOUSE, KUTTICHAL, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695541. 2REJEENA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. RAMLA BEEVI, RAJEENA HOUSE, KUTTICHAL, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695541. 3SIVAPRASAD, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SELVAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH - 199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695006. 4GANESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH - 199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695006. 5VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH - 199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695006. ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` - `6 PADMAKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH - 199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695006.` - `7 CHANDRIKA, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542.` - `8 VINOD CHITHU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542` - `9 RESMEENDRA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.CHANDRIKA, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542.` - `10 SUPRABHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.CHANDRIKA, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542` - `11 SUHURTH RAJ, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI,MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542.` - `12 UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, DWARAKA, PARUTHIPPALLY, PARUTHIPPALLY.P.O, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542` - `13 DIVITHLAL, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572.` - `14 SUJA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695572.` - `15 SUBHA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 695572. 16AMBILI AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572. 17REJITHA AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572. BY ADVS. G.S.REGHUNATH : FOR R1 & R2 MEENA.A. : FOR R7 TO R11 JITHIN SAJI ISAAC : FOR R12 K.J.SAJI ISAAC(S-82) : FOR R12 ELIZABETH VARKEY(E-25) : FOR R12 AJEESH EMMANUEL(K/109/2012) : FOR R12 SHAMSUDEEN O.K.(K/000687/2017): FOR R12 T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) : FOR R7 TO R11 VINOD RAVINDRANATH : FOR R7 TO R11 K.C.KIRAN : FOR R7 TO R11 M.R.MINI : FOR R7 TO R11 M.DEVESH : FOR R7 TO R11 ASHWIN SATHYANATH : FOR R7 TO R11 ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH : FOR R7 TO R11 THAREEQ ANVER K. : FOR R7 TO R11 ``` ``` THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 20.12.2022, ALONG WITH FAO (RO).22/2022, 25/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 FAO (RO) NO. 22 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2022 IN AS NO.18/2019 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2018 IN OS 648/2008 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:`** ``` PREMALATHA, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O. DEVAKI, RESIDING AT V.V.BHAVAN, POOCHEDIVILA, KATTAKADA, POONJAMCODE MURI, KATTAKADA P.O, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572. BY ADVS. G.P.SHINOD GOVIND PADMANAABHAN AJIT G ANJARLEKAR ATUL MATHEWS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 15/`** ``` ADDL.DEFENDANTS 9 TO 13 AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5,7,8 & ADDL. 14TH DENFENDANTS AND COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANTS 15-19: ``` ``` 1CHANDRIKA, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPALLY, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. ``` - `2 VINOD CHITHU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPALLY, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542 .` ``` 3RESMEENDRA, AGED 45 YEARS, ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` - `D/O.SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542.` - `4 SUPRABHA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542` - `5 SUHURTH RAJ, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542` - `6 SIVAPRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SELVAN, PUTHENKADA, ODANKUZHI, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHPUARAM695006.` - `7 GANESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA, ODANKUZHI, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHPUARAM695006.` - `8 VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA, ODANKUZHI, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHPUARAM695006.` - `9 PADMAKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA, ODANKUZHI, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHPUARAM695006.` - `10 MAHEEN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.HASANARU PILLA, RAJEENA SADANAM, KUTTICHAL, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695541.` - `11 RAJEENA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.MAHEEN, RAJEENA SADANAM, KUTTICHAL, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695541.` - `12 UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, NAYANANANDANAM, THIRUMANKUZHI, PAZHAYATHERUV MURI, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695542.` - `13 DIVITHLAL, AGED 45 YEARS,` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` S/O.UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572. 14SUJA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572. 15SUBHA, AGED 55 YEARS D/O.UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572. 16AMBILI, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572. 17RAJITHA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572. ``` ``` THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 20.12.2022, ALONG WITH FAO (RO).20/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 FAO (RO) NO. 25 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2022 IN AS 15/2019 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2018 IN OS 648/2008 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 7& 8:`** ``` 1MAHEEN, AGED 63 YEARS, HASANARU PILLAI, RAJEENA HOUSE, KUTTICHAL, MANNORKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541. 2RAJEENA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O RAMLA BEEVI, RAJEENA HOUSE, KUTTICHAL, MANNORKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541. BY ADV G.S.RAGHUNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS & COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANTS:`** ``` 1PREMALATHA, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O DEVAKI, RESIDING AT V.V.BHAVAN, POOCHEDIVILA, KATTAKADA, POONJAMCODE MURI, KATTAKADA P.O., PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572. (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF/COUNTER CLAIM 1[ST] DEFENDANT). 2SELVAM, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3SIVAPRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O SELVAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4GANESH, AGED 42 YEARS, ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` - `S/O ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.` - `5 VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.` - `6 PADMAKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O ARUMUGHAM, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, ODANKUZHY, ORAH-199, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.` - `7 UDAYAMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O DEVAKI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, PULIMOODU, ARYANAD, UZHAMALACKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 542.` - `8 CHANDRIKA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 574.` - `9 VINOD CHITHU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 574.` - `10 RESMEENDRA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O CHANDRIKA, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 574.` - `11 SUPRABHA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O CHANDRIKA, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 574.` - `12 SUHURTH RAJ, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O SADASIVAN, VINOD BHAVAN, PARUTHIPPALLI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 574.` - `13 UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, DWARAKA, PARUTHIPPALLI, PARUTHIPPALLY P.O., KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 574.` - `14 DIVITHLAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ||`VILLAGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572.`| |---|---| |`15`|`SUJA,`| ||`AGED 43 YEARS,`| ||`D/O UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,`| ||`CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM`| ||`KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM`| ||`VILLAGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572.`| |`16`|`SUBHA,`| ||`AGED 53 YEARS,`| ||`D/O UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,`| ||`CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM`| ||`KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM`| ||`VILLAGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572.`| |`17`|`AMBILI,`| ||`AGED 48 YEARS,`| ||`D/O UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,`| ||`CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM`| ||`KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM`| ||`VILLAGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572.`| |`18`|`REJITHA,`| ||`AGED 45 YEARS,`| ||`D/O UDAYAMMA, MUTHUVANDANKUZHI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,`| ||`CHITTUVEETTU MURI, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE FROM`| ||`KUNNILVILAKATHU VEEDU, POONJAKKOTTU MURI, PERUMKULAM`| ||`VILLAGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572.`| |`THIS`|`FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP`| |`FOR HEARING ON 20.12.2022, ALONG WITH FAO (RO).20/2022 AND`|| |`CONNECTED `|`CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE`| |`FOLLOWING:`|| ``` 10 ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The respondents in FAO(RO)20/2022 and FAO(RO) ``` ``` 22/2022 are the very same persons and services completed as against them in FAO(RO)20/2022. Respondent Numbers 6 to 9 in FAO(RO)No.22/2022 are the parties to the other appeal FAO (RO)No.20/2022 ``` ``` and their service was completed and hence service is declared as complete. Heard both sides. Both ``` ``` appeals are against the common order of remand by ``` ``` the First Appellate court. The remand was ordered on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, ``` ``` in proof of a Will. In fact, the due execution of the Will is not under challenge. Necessarily, the ``` ``` question of proof doesn't arise for consideration. ``` ``` It is well settled that an admitted document need not be proved. It is submitted across the Bar that, the first appellate court may be directed to ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` **==> picture [14 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** ``` consider all the questions pertaining to the dispute involved in the suit and also to address all issues raised therein and issues if any, omitted to be raised at the trial stage. The impugned order of remand will stand set aside. The parties shall appear before the first appellate court on 23/01/2023 so as to enable the first appellant court to proceed further in the matter and the first appellate court is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal on merits in consonance with the mandate under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, and 24 of CPC and also the legal position laid down by this Court inGopalakrishnan and Another v. Ponnappan and others [2021 (5) KHC 548]followed by the ``` ``` decision of Apex court in Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta (1988 KHC 883). Both the appeals hence will stand allowed accordingly. In view of the abovesaid disposal, the learned counsel for the appellant in FAO (RO) 25/2022 Sri. G S ``` ``` FAO (RO) Nos.20/2022, 22/2022 & 25/2022 ``` ``` 12 ``` ``` Raghunath fairly conceded that it is not at all ``` ``` necessary to proceed further in the matter. Hence, submission is recorded. FAO (RO)25/2022 will stand dismissed as not pressed into service. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ``` P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE ``` ``` rkr-20/12 ```