IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 630 of 2007() --------------------- (OP.12/2005 of III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1,3, TO 10. ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ACHUTHAN NAIR, AGED 70, S/O. KADAVATH LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, KOLAZHY VILLAGE-DESOM,THRISSUR. 2. SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, S/O. KADAVATH PARUKUTTYY AMMA, (DIED) PERINGANDORE DESOM,PERINGAVU,THALAPPILLY. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KADAVATH PARUKUTTY AMMA, (DIED) KIZHAKAMURY, PERINGOTUKARA. 4. SULOCHANA, S/O. KADAVATHU PARUKUTTY AMMA (DIED) CHIRAKUNNU, KILLANNUR,THRISSUR. 5. SATHIDEVI, D/O. KADAVATH PARUKUTTY AMMA, (DIED) POOMKUNNU,THRISSUR. 6. LALITHA NANDAKUMAR, D/O.KADAVATHU PARUKUTTY AMMA, (DIED) NELLIKAD, PEREPADAM, VILVATTOM, THRISSUR. 7. VENUGOPAL, S/O. KADAVATHU PARUKUTTY AMMA (DIED) CHIRAKKKUNNU, KILLANNUR, THRISSUR. 8. JAYANTHI RAVEENDRAN, D/O.KADAVATHU PARUKUTTY AMMA, N(DIED), VILLADA, VILVATTOM, THRISSUR. 9. SUKUMARAN,S/O.KADAVATHU PARUKUTTY AMMA, CHIRAKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- SARASWATHY AMMA, AGED 65, KADAVATHU LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, KOLAZHY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 630 of 2007 ----------------------------- ORDER ON IA NO.1703/07 IN CRP NO.630/2007 DISMISSED 24.1.2011 Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.630 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the III rd Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur in O.P.No.12/2005. It was an application filed for seeking discharge the charge created on the petition schedule property by virtue of the settlement deed. As per the deed of settlement, an amount of `2,000/= has to be deposited towards the amount due to the first respondent and `2,200/= to the second respondent including cost of the household articles. A petition is filed under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act to record the same. Validity of the document is not admitted. So it is under such circumstance, the petition has come up for consideration and the trial court has permitted the amount to be deposited in discharge of the amount contemplated under the document. The trial court also made it very clear that “hence the respondent's contention regarding the genuineness of the settlement deed and interest etc are left open to another appropriate proceedings and petitioner : 2 : C.R.P.NO.630 OF 2007 herein is permitted to deposit the change amount with notice to the respondents and respondents can receive the same”. 2. This question had been directly considered by a learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in Vasantha Kumari v. Sarojini (2008 (1) KLT 451). The learned Judge held that the question involved is whether “donees under a gift deed who were made liable to pay certain amounts to certain persons under the terms of gift deed, are entitled to deposit before Civil Court amounts so payable and get such deposit recorded, even when genuineness of gift deed itself is disputed by persons to whom amounts are to be paid. The court also held that “in order to record the deposit under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act or to record the same by invoking Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is not expected to decide the disputes between the parties relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the document or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties or the entitlement of any party to receive any amount or as to the : 3 : C.R.P.NO.630 OF 2007 sufficiency of the amount or any other matter which is required to be settled in a properly constituted civil suit” 3. So in the light of this pronouncement, I find that there is no irregularity committed by the court below and the party is permitted to deposit the amount. It is left open to the court other things to be decided in a properly constituted proceeding. Therefore, the CRP is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.630 OF 2007 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R