IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA No. 278 of 2006()
1. SHINEY, MEKKATTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOHNY, S/O. ABRAHAM,
... Respondent
2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.K.SHAMSUDDIN (RETD. JUDGE)
Dated :23/07/2007
O R D E R
JUSTICE K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) &
JUSTICE P.K.SHAMSUDDIN (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
M.A.C.A. No.278 of 2006
---------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2007
AWARD
The parties have agreed to settle the dispute according to which
claimant/appellant is entitled to get an additional payment of Rs.23,000/-
(Rupees Twenty three thousand only) as compensation. The second
respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited will deposit the amount
before the MACT, Pala for payment to the claimant within 60 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this award, failing which the amount will carry
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till payment.
MACA is disposed of as above.
K.JOHN MATHEW
(RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
P.K.SHAMSUDDIN
(RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
jp
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C) No. 34552 of 2004(L)
#1. RAJEEV, S/O. P.K. BALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. V. HYDER, S/O. VEERANKUTTY,
... Respondent
2. C.M. MOOSA, MALAYANKULATHI HOUSE,
3. SATHYABHAMA, W/O. P.K. BALAKRISHNAN,
4. P.K. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUNJANDU,
! For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS
^ For Respondent :SRI.P.K.JOSEPH
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
% Dated :15/06/2007
: O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
——————————-
W.P.(C) No. 34552 OF 2004
———————————–
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P3 order passed by the learned District Judge on an
interlocutory application filed by the 1st respondent in an original petition
filed by the mother of the petitioner under Section 8(2) of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act is under challenge. The original petition
filed by the mother of the petitioner was allowed by the District Judge on
31.08.98 by Ext.P1 order. Under Ext.P1 the court granted permission to
the mother of the petitioner to sell property belonging to the petitioner
who then was a minor aged 16 years on condition that the property
covered by Ext.A2 agreement will be assigned to the minor. The court
below also directed that after assignment the petitioner’s mother shall
produce the title document before the court. On the strength of Ext.P1
the property belonging to the petitioner was sold to the petitioner in the
IA who was the first respondent in the original petition. But the petitioner
in the original petition did not produce original of the title document
relating to property mentioned as Ext.A2 in Ext.P1. The petitioner
attained majority on 18.02.2000 and filed a suit against the 1st
respondent in the original petition for setting aside the document in
favour of the 1st respondent. In that suit the 1st respondent contended
WPC No.34552 of 2004
2
that the document in his favour has been executed on the strength of
Exts.P1 and P3. According to the petitioner he who was a minor all
through, came to have information regarding Exts.P1 and P3 only when
the written statement was filed in the suit filed by him. In this writ
petition the petitioner seeks quashment of Exts.P1 and P3 on various
grounds.
Heard Sri.T.C.Mohandas, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Even though several submissions were urged before me by the learned
counsel, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P1 since admittedly on
the date of Ext.P1, the petitioner was a minor and the petitioner’s mother
could have maintained an application under Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act for sale of property in Ext.P1. I notice that the interest
of the minor has been take care of by the learned District Judge. But I
find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was entitled for notice regarding IA No.874
of 2004. Though that IA was filed in 1994, when the petitioner was till a
minor, it was kept pending till 05.09.2000. As already indicated the
petitioner has attained majority on 18.02.2000. Under these
circumstances I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the learned District Judge to
take fresh decision in the IA with notice to the petitioner and all the four
respondents in this Writ Petition namely Sri. Hyder. petitioner in the IA,
WPC No.34552 of 2004
3
the parents of the petitioner herein and also Sri.C.M.Moosa the original
owner of the property which was purchased in the name of the petitioner
in substitution of the property covered by Ext.A2 made mention of in
Ext.P1. In order to enable the District Judge to do that, I suo motu
implead the petitioner Rajeev, S/o. P.K. Balakrishnan, Punathil House,
Ezhakkad, Palakkad Taluk as additional respondent No.3 in the IA. The
office of the District Court, Palakkad will carry out corrections in IA
No.874 of 1994 within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. I
make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the view of the
learned District Judge that the interest of the minor has been taken care
of by the purchase of the property covered by document No.2482/88.
Ext.P3 is being interfered with only on the technical ground that the
petitioner was a necessary party and was entitled to be heard since the
petitioner had attained majority on the date of passage of Ext.P3.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.34552 of 2004
4