IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18120 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.176/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. USHA NANDAKUMAR, AGED 41, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O.POJANAM – 680 702, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANTHOSH V.MENON, AGED 42, S/O.A.VIJAYAN MENON, THIRUTHIKATTIL HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMB DESOM, KALLOOR, VADAKKU MURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. PALAYAMPARAMB – 680 741. 2. MANJULA SANTHOSH, AGED 35, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT W/O.SANTHOSH, THIRUTHIKATTIL HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMB DESOM, KALLOOR, VADAKKU MURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O.PALAYAMPARAMB - 680 741. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANTHOSH V.MENON, AGED 42, S/O.A.VIJAYAN MENON, THIRUTHIKATTIL HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMB DESOM, KALLOOR, VADAKKU MURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. PALAYAMPARAMB – 680 741. 3. SANTHOSH V.MENON, AGED 42, S/O.A.VIJAYAN MENON, THIRUTHIKATTIL HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMB DESOM, KALLUR VADAKKU MURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. PALAYAMPARAMB - 680 741. BY ADVS. MR.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, MR.P.VISWANATHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SARASWATHY, AGED 50, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O.POJANAM - 680 702. Kss ..2/- ....2..... WPC.NO.18120/2009 O 2. BINDU MADHAVAN, AGED 11, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O.POJANAM - 680 702. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SARASWATHY, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR. 3. MINI MOHANAN, AGED 35, W/O.LATE MOHANAN, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. POJANAM – 680 702. 4. JITHIN MOHANAN, AGED 14, S/O.LATE MOHANAN, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER MINI MOHANANAN, W/O.LATE MOHANAN, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O. POJANAM – 680 702. 5. JISHNU MOHANAN, AGED 10, S/O.LATE MOHANAN, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER MINI MOHANANAN, W/O.LATE MOHANAN, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, POJANAM DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O.POJANAM-680 702. 6. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 55, S/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA, VALIYATTIL HOUSE, ROHINI, POLICE STATION ROAD, NEAR DEVAKI KALYANAN MANDAPOM, GURUVAYOOR DESOM & VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HASARIBUG HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, VIKROLI WEST, MUMBAI – 400 083. R1 BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN, SMT.P.A.ANITHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18120 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S No. 176 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda in which the defendants produced a will purported to have been executed by one Madhavan Nair to resist the claim for partition of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed partition under another will executed by the same testator. The defendants produced a probate purported to have been issued over the will under which they claimed right over the property in their written statement. Plaintiffs moved an application before the trial court stating that they had no notice of the probate proceedings and they may granted time to move for revoking the W.P.(C).No.18120 OF 2009 Page numbers probate. That application was not entertained by the court below, against which the writ petition has been filed. 2. Notice being given, the respondents have entered appearance. It is admitted by both sides, the probate issued in favour of the respondent / 6th defendant has been subsequently revoked on the application of the plaintiff before the High Court of Bombay which granted the probate, and the probate proceedings initiated by the 6th defendant now stands reopened for the statements / objections of the plaintiff. That being so, the writ petition has become infructuous as the probate has been revoked by orders passed by the High Court of Bombay. So, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TURE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv