K.Rudrani v. Pradeep Kumar (Died)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/17TH CHAITHRA, 1937 RP.No. 310 of 2013 -------------------------- AS 739/1995, DATED 14/09/2012 ---------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. K.RUDRANI, AGED 67 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
2. VILASINI, AGED 66 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
3. NALINI, AGED 60 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
4. PUSHPA, AGED 54 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
5. PREMA, AGED 52 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
6. PAVITHRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
7. GEETHA, AGED 46 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
8. SHAJI, AGED 41 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. PRADEEP KUMAR (DIED) PJ ....2/-
..2..
RP.No. 310 of 2013 --------------------------
2. VIJAMANI (INSAME) REPRESENTED NEXT FRIEND R6, KAKKUR AMSOM NADUVALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 614.
3. SANTHOSH KUMAR KAKKUR AMSOM, NADUVALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 614.
4. GIRIJA, KAKKUR AMSOM, NADUVALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 614.
5. USHA D/O.JANAKI AMMA, KAKKUR AMSOM, NADUVALLUR DESOM KOZHIKODE 673 614.
6. SMT.LEELAVATHY W/O.PRADEEPKUMAR, MADATHIL HOUSE, POST KAKKUR VIA NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE 673 613.
R3,R4 & 6 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SRI.S.KANNAN SRI.P.S.RAMALINGAM BY SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW BY SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J & K.HARILAL, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P.No.310 of 2013 in A.S.No.739 of 1995 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique,J This review petition is filed by the appellants seeking to review the judgment dated 14/09/2012 in A.S.No.739 of 1995. In the grounds raised, the review petitioner submits that the property obtained by Janaki Amma as per Ext.A1 partition deed had been sold by her to the 1st petitioner and she had obtained the sale consideration for acquiring house property for the residence. Further, it is stated that there is error apparent on the face of the record.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
3.
On a perusal of the judgment, we are of the view that the entire issue projected by the appellants had been considered in detail. The grounds raised in the review petition therefore does not warrant review of the judgment
as there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment. Under such circumstances, there is no basis to consider this review petition on merits and hence the same is dismissed. (SD/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) (SD/-) (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) jsr