IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 544 of 2008(C)
1. THANKAMANI.P.O., D/O.ANANDAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RADHAMANI.P.O., D/O.ANANDAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :27/05/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.544/2008 in WP(C).12835/2008-C
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008.
O R D E R
1.This review petition is filed by the fourth
respondent in WP(C).12835/2008. She and the writ
petitioner are sisters. They are parties to a
partition suit pending before the Munsiff’s
Court, Taliparamba. It appears that there is a
building in the common property. The said
building is numbered by the Sreekandapuram Grama
Panchayat as SP XII 321A. The writ petitioner
applied for grant of electricity supply to that
building on the basis of possession certificate
and moved this Court alleging non-consideration
of that application. Having regard to the nature
of the Electricity Laws, the Telegraphs Act and
the other attendant provisions of law that
governs the situation, directions were issued as
RP544/2008 -: 2 :-
per judgment dated 11-4-2008 requiring the
Electricity Board authorities to take action in
accordance with law. Notice to the fourth
respondent therein, namely, the review
petitioner, was dispensed with because, the
directions issued as per that judgment would not,
in any manner, affect the right of the review
petitioner to raise objections to the drawal of
the line. This is because, in terms of the
Electricity Act, if there is obstruction to the
drawal of the line, the Electricity authority has
to move the District Magistrate or the Additional
District Magistrate, as the case may be, and
apply for removal of obstruction and in such
event, the review petitioner (fourth respondent
in the writ petition) would be entitled to an
opportunity of being heard.
2.Be that as it may, this review petition is filed
alleging that the assertion in the writ petition
that the writ petitioner is residing in that
building for the last so many years is a wrong
RP544/2008 -: 3 :-
statement and that the judgment is likely to be
misunderstood by the Board authorities and there
may be forcible drawal of the line without
abiding by the Rules. It is also pointed out that
Ext.P2 on the strength of which the possession of
the writ petitioner was sought to be proved,
could not be acted upon since even in the written
statement before the civil court (Annexure-5
along with the review petition), the writ
petitioner is shown to have taken the stand that
she was only constructing the building in
question even in 2005.
3.Ext.P2 is only an ownership certificate issued
showing the writ petitioner as the owner of the
building situated therein, according to the
assessment register for the years 1997-98 to
2006-07. While it is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the review petitioner that the
addition of the letter `A’ along with the number
of the house shows that the building could be a
new construction, Ext.P2 cannot be taken to be
RP544/2008 -: 4 :-
issued to evidence that the building was
constructed in 1997-98. I say so because, all
that the said certificate shows is that the writ
petitioner is shown to be the owner of that
building in a register which pertains to 1997-
2007. That is for two quinquennials. All that it
refers is to the period for which the register is
maintained. It does not, by itself, evidence the
date of construction. I make this clarification
because, the judgment sought to be reviewed is
never intended to affect, in any manner, the
rival contentions of the parties before the civil
Court. It has also to be remembered that the
Electricity Board has necessarily to take action
for removal of obstruction in terms of the
Electricity Act, having regard to the stand of
the review petitioner.
4.Having heard learned counsel for parties, it also
needs to be clarified that even the drawal of
line, if at all permitted, shall also be subject
to the result of the civil suit between the
RP544/2008 -: 5 :-
parties and this judgment will not stand in the
way of the civil court deciding the equities and
other matters in the partition suit. The
aforesaid clarifications will satisfy the purpose
of the review petitioner.
5.Before parting with this case, it needs to be
noticed that the writ petitioner appears to have,
even in his written statement, taken the stand
that the properties are common. The review
petitioner and the writ petitioner are sisters.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the
review petitioner that his client was away in
Tamil Nadu for quite some time and that what was
there in the common property is the old family
house. Family ties are not built in concrete and
rubble. This is a fit case where the parties,
through the aid and advice of their wise counsel,
negotiate and settle the suit and end up amicably
so that they could enjoy the love and affection
they had under the guiding lights of their
parents when they lived in the old family house.
RP544/2008 -: 6 :-
The learned Munsiff will, therefore, make an
endeavour to ascertain whether the partition suit
between the parties could be considered for
amicable settlement at the earliest. I call upon
the parties also to reasonably co-operative and
end a litigation.
With the aforesaid clarifications, this review
petition is closed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/020608