IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 16 of 2011(S)
1. P.P.SABU, S/O. PHILIP, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ANNAMMA N.K., WIDOW OF PHILOP P.C.,
Vs
1. M.C.MOHANDAS,
... Respondent
2. JOY THOMAS,
3. K.M.PANKAJAKSHI,
4. MOHANAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
Contempt Case(C)No.16 Of 2011
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Alleging that the respondents are not complying with the
direction in Annexure I judgment, the petitioners have filed the
Contempt Case. As per the judgment, this Court directed the
petitioners to produce an authentic copy of the ‘Will’ before the
Village Officer along with a reply to Exhibit P7 and the other
documents required, based on which further action will be taken
by the 3rd and 4th respondents in accordance with law to reconvey
the property.
In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent , in paragraph
No.4, it is stated as follows:
” It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners
produced will before the respondent. But in the will,
an extent of 8.75 Acres were only bequeathed to Sri
P.P.Babu, the 1st petitioner. In compliance to the
direction of this Hon’ble Court, 8.75 Acres of land
were re-conveyed to the 1st petitioner on 10.6.2010.
The order of re-conveyance submitted by Additional
Tahsildar before the District Collector, Malappuram
dated 19.6.2010 is produced herewith and marked
COC.No.16/11 -2-
as Annexure R2(a). In the will, there is no
observation with respect to 42.5 Cents of land. It
cannot be assumed that it is given to 1st petitioner.
So the respondent directed petitioners to produce
Legal Heirship Certificate of late P.C.Philip and
consent from other legal heirs for re-conveying the
remaining portion of the property. If petitioner
produces that document, then the remaining portion
of the property can be re-conveyed.”
The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore prayed that
recording the same, the Contempt Case may be closed.
Accordingly the contempt of Court Case is closed.
Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
dsn
True copy
P.A.to Judge