RFA No. 201 of 2021 (A)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 21[st] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944 RFA NO. 201 OF 2021 (A) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2019 IN OS No.349/2013 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 12 TO 14 AND LEGAL HEIRS OF 11th DEFENDANT: 1 KUTTIAMAN @ SUNDARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/o POOPARAMBIL KIZHAKKE THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 2 UNNIPERACHAN @ ASOKAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/o POOPARAMBIL KIZHAKKE THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 3 SIVADASAN @ DEVADASAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/o POOPARAMBIL KIZHAKKE THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 4 SANTHA, AGED 68 YEARS, W/o KUTTIAMAN @ SREEDHARAN THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. - 5 LATHEESH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/o KUTTIAMAN @ SREEDHARAN THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. - 6 SATHEESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/o KUTTIAMAN @ SREEDHARAN THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 7 SREEJA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/o KUTTIAMAN @ SREEDHARAN THODIYIL PERACHAN, RESIDING AT PALAKKADY HOUSE, CHULUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK P.O, RFA No.201 of 2021 2 CHULUR, NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673601. BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH ANUSREE.C ## RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 AND 6 TO 10: 1 RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/o UKKU NAIR, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. VELLALASSERI, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 2 KALYANI AMMA, AGED 85 YEARS, D/o KANARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MELE IYYARAMBATH HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 3 PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/o KANARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MELE IYYARAMBATH HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 4 VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS, S/o KANARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MELE IYYARAMBATH HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 5 RAVEENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/o KUTTAN NAIR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 6 JAYASREE, AGED 58 YEARS, W/o CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 7 SWAPNA CHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS, D/o CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. RFA No.201 of 2021 3 8 SONA CHANDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, D/o CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 9 SANOOP CHANDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/o CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOLAKODE AMSOM, CHULUR DESOM, P.O. CHULUR, VIA-NIET, KOZHIKODE - 673601. (DIED) THE 6TH RESPONDENT IS RECORDED AS THE SOLE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED 9TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 31/03/2022 IN IA 1/2022. R1 TO R3 & R8 BY ADVS. T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR T.O.DEEPA(K/180/2008) C.SIVADAS(K/798/2012) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RFA No.201 of 2021 4 ## **JUDGMENT** The judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge is extracted below for reference: _“IA 2044/2014 dismissed (VSO). As Preliminary decree and Final decree already passed (VSJ) & (VSO). File closed.”_ 2. When the matter came up for admission on 12.07.2022, the following order was passed, which is also extracted below for reference: _“The Registry is directed to send a copy of the impugned judgment dated 18/07/2019 to the Director (Academics), Kerala Judicial Academy so as to ascertain what is actually intended by the officer under the impugned order. The Registry is further directed to call for a report from the concerned officer regarding the abovesaid order so as to satisfy this court whether it is a decree or something else known to law. The report shall be reached on or before 21.07.2022._ _If the officer is still in judicial service necessary steps shall be taken so as to give her proper training in the matter. Post on 21.07.2022.”_ RFA No.201 of 2021 5 3. The judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, by itself, would show that the officer even did not know the preliminary requirement for rendering a judgment and drawing a decree. 4. The expression “decree” is defined under Section 2(2) C.P.C. as follows: _“2(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an_ _adjudication which, so far as regards the Court_ _expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include-_ - _(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or_ _(b) any order of dismissal for default._ _Explanation.-A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.”_ 5. The expression “judgment” is defined under Section 2(9) C.P.C. as under: _“2(9) “Judgment” means the statement given by_ RFA No.201 of 2021 6 _the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order.”_ 6. A conjoint reading of Section 2(2) and 2(9) C.P.C. would show the requirements for rendering a judgment and drawing a decree. There should be a formal expression of an adjudication, which conclusively determines the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy to a suit, in the judgment. The Judge must give a statement on the grounds by which the disputed issues were conclusively determined in reference to the right of parties. In short, a judgment stands for and it must contain the facts of the case, the issues involved, the evidence brought by the parties and adjudication on the disputed issues. The decree is to be drawn based on the abovesaid judgment and it must contain the outcome of the suit which conclusively determines the right of parties on the issues in dispute. Normally, a decree has to be drawn based on the operative portion of the judgment. 7. In order to bring up a valid decree as defined under Section 2(2) C.P.C., there should be the following essential elements **[Dewan Brothers v. Central Bank of India** RFA No.201 of 2021 7 **(AIR 1976 SC 1503), R.Rathinavel Chettiar v. V.Sivaraman** **[(1999) 4 SCC 89], Ratansingh v. Vijaysingh (AIR 2001 SC** ## **279)]** : - i. There should be an adjudication. ii. The adjudication should determine the rights of parties regarding the matter in controversy. iii. The adjudication should be in a suit and the adjudication should be formal and conclusive so far as that court is concerned. 8. Further, it was laid down by the Apex Court in **S.Satnam Singh v. Surender Kaur (AIR 2009 SC 1089)** that for determining the question as to whether an order passed by a court is a decree or not, it must satisfy the following tests: - i. There must be an adjudication. - ii. Such adjudication must have been given in a suit. - iii. It must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. - iv. Such determination must be of a conclusive nature. RFA No.201 of 2021 8 v. There must be a formal expression of such adjudication. 9. It is not necessary that in a decree, there should be statement of reasons given by the judge. It is for that purpose, a judgment has to be rendered giving the statement of reasons in the determination of right of parties. Necessarily, the judgment should contain the facts of the case, the evidence involved and statement of reasons given by the Judge in the determination and adjudication of respective issues in dispute. 10. In the instant case, in fact, no decree was drawn though a judgment was rendered presumably on the reason that the judgment rendered is not capable of drawing a decree. It is highly damaging and injurious to the system. 11. The impugned judgment rendered without a decree will stand set aside on the abovesaid grounds. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for proper disposal in accordance with the law in force. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 25/08/2022. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No costs. RFA No.201 of 2021 9 The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the impugned judgment to the Director (Academics), Kerala Judicial Academy, for future guidance while imparting training to the Judicial Officers. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.SOMARAJAN** **JUDGE** DMR/- RFA No.201 of 2021 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## APPELLANTS' ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN IA 1649/19 AND IA 1650/19 IIIrd ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOZHIKODE DATED 26.8.2021. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE