REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P.N. Viswambaran Appellant

V/S

T.P. Sanu Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

<RC>GOURI VS. BALAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
<RC>DHARMA RAGHUNATH DESAI VS. KESHAV GUNAJEE KONDKAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD BAQAR VS. NAIM UN NISA BIBI [REFERRED TO]
P LAKSHMI REDDY VS. L LAKSHMI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
M PENTIAH VS. MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
SOMAWANTI 0M PARKASH ATMA RAM CHODHA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHANDRAMAUL [REFERRED TO]
JAHURI SAH VS. DWARKA PRASAD JHUNJHUNWALA [REFERRED TO]
BODDU VENKATAKRISHNA RAO VS. BODDU SATYAVATHI [REFERRED TO]
SYED SHAH GHULAM GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN VS. SYED SHAH AHMED MOHIUDDIN KAMISUL QUADRI DIED [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH RAI VS. JAIJAI RAM [REFERRED TO]
GANESH TRADING CO VS. MOJI RAM [REFERRED TO]
CHETTIAN VEETIL AMMAD C MATHEW JAYASHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED RAVI KARUNA KARAN E V PAUL P A SIVASUBRAMONIAN V G KURIAKOSE C A VENKATACHALLAM CHETTIAR SUBHADRA SMT VARGHESE MARIAM P J VETRIVEL P M KURUVILLA THO VS. TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TAL [REFERRED TO]
SUPDT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS WEST BENGAL VS. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP GUPTA VS. BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
H C PANDEY VS. G C PAUL [REFERRED TO]
HARISH TANDON VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD U P [REFERRED TO]
CHEERANTHOODIKA AHMMEDKUTTY VS. PARAMBUR MARIAKUTTY UMMA [REFERRED TO]
PARVINDER SINGH VS. RENU GAUTAM [REFERRED TO]
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA VS. MINIYATAN ZACHARIAS [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN VS. MAKKAM [REFERRED TO]
VELLAPPAN VS. PETER THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
SREE KARIKAD DEVASWOM VS. WANDOOR JUPITER CHITS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
KOCHU LAKSHMI VS. VELAYUDHAN [REFERRED TO]
M N PAUL VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
KARICHERRY CHARADAN NAIR VS. EDAYILLAM KUNHAMBU NAIR [REFERRED TO]
VANNATHI VALAPPIL JANAKI VS. PUTHIYA PURAYIL PARU [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR VS. RADHA AMMA [REFERRED TO]
KUNHUNNI VS. KESAVAN NARNBOODIRI [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTHAM G PLYWOOD CO VS. HAMSA KUTTY [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD HAJI VS. KUNHUNNI NAIR [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKKE VS. GOPI [REFERRED TO]
RAMRUDHAR SINGH VS. DILESHWAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANMATHA NATH VS. RAKHAL CHANDRA MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
BABANI SOIROO PATEL VS. DULBA GOVIND BHANDARI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA GOPI VS. U.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
Ramji Dixit and another VS. Bhrigunath and others [REFERRED TO]
KUNDATHODI SAIDALI VS. KAPPIL AMINA UMMA [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN PADMANABHAN VS. DEVAKI THULASI [REFERRED TO]
MS. EERA THROUGH DR. MANJULA KRIPPENDORF VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the effect of a certificate of purchase issued to one of the co-sharers of a land under Sec. 72K (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on other co-sharers Does the provision contained in Sec. 72K (2) of the Act prevent the other co-sharers from claiming right, title and possession over the land in respect of which the certificate of purchase is issued under Sec. 72K (1) of the Act Does the provision contained in Sec. 72K(2) of the Act exclude the operation of Sec. 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 These are the questions which essentially fall for consideration and determination by this Full Bench.

(2.) This appeal has come up for hearing before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.03.2017 to resolve the conflict between the decisions of this Court in Paul Vs. State of Kerala and Another, (1981) KerLT 721 and Ramakke and Others Vs. Gopi and Others,2011 3 KHC 491.

(3.) The appeal arises out of the suit O.S.No.1901 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The suit is for partition. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. He contended that he is a co-owner of the plaint schedule property and he claimed one-fifth share in the property. His plea in the suit is that Raman, his predecessor-ininterest, had leasehold right over the plaint schedule property and being the son of Karthiyayini, one of the daughters of Raman, he has acquired right over the property. The claim of the appellant/plaintiff is resisted by the contesting defendants by raising the contention that the property exclusively belonged to their predecessor-in-interest Prabhakaran, one of the sons of Raman. They contended that Prabhakaran had purchased the jenm right of the property in his name through the Land Tribunal concerned. According to the plaintiff, the purchase certificate obtained in the name of Prabhakaran enures to the benefit of all the co-owners including him.

Click here to view full judgment.

P.N. VISWAMBARAN Vs. T.P. SANU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address