IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 18 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.704/1995 Dated 09/09/2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN SA: ------------------------------- M. MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, M.P. MANDIRAM, KALAKKODU CHERRY, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN SA -------------------------- 1. SUMATHY AMMA, D/O. KUNJIPILLAI AMMA, ANANDAVILSATHU VEEDU, ADICHANALLOR CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. B. SANTHAMMA AMMA, D/O BHAVANI AMMA, LATHIKA VILASAM VEEDU, KUNDUMON CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. K. NARAYANA PILLAI (DIED), NEPHEW OF KRISHNA PILLAI, PLAVILA VEEDU, KUNDUMON CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. BHAVANI AMMA, W/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, PLAVILA VEEDU, KUNDUMON CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. K. KUTTAN PILLAI (DIED), S/O. KESAVAN PILLAI, PLAVILA VEEDU, KUNDUMON CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 6. K. RAJEEVAN PILLAI, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, PLAVILA VEEDU, KUNDUMON CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 7. K SURESH BABU S/o. KUTTAN PILLAI, PLAVILA VEEDU, KUNDUMON CHERRY ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO.19 OF 2010 . THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.18 of 2010 in S.A.No.704 of 1995 & R.P.No.19 of 2010 in S.A.No.847 of 1997 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of January, 2010 COMMON ORDER Heard both sides. 2. These petitions seek review of the common judgment dated 09-09-2009 in S.A.Nos.704 of 1995 and 847 of 1997. Petitioners are the unsuccessful appellants in these second appeals. The grounds stated in the petition for review are that this court while disposing of the appeals observed in paragraph 10 of the common judgment that documents produced by the review petitioners (appellants in the second appeals) in the first appellate court did not reveal that the parties were following the Marumakkathayam Law in the matter of intestate succession. Grievance of petitioners is that the said documents as well as Ext.A4 already marked in the case would reveal that the parties were following the Makkathayam Law of Succession. The findings that being members of Hindu Nair community, parties were following the Marumakkathayam Law of Succession and hence section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act applied is illegal. Learned counsel would submit that there is an error apparent on the face of the records in that the documents were not properly considered by this court while disposing of the second appeal. Learned counsel submits R.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2010 2 that common judgment may be reviewed and the matter may be reheard. The petitions are opposed by learned counsel for respondents in the review petition (respondents in the second appeals). Learned counsel points out that the parties belong to the Hindu Nair Community domiciled in erstwhile Travancore area and hence there is no scope for a contention that they were following the Makkathayam Law of Succession in view of the provisions of the Travancore Nair Act. 3. It is not disputed before me that the parties belong to the Hindu Nair community domiciled in the erstwhile Travancore area. While hearing these second appeals petitioners had advanced an argument that the parties were following Makkathayam Law of Succession and hence section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act applied. This court in the common judgment sought to be reviewed held after referring to the relevant provisions in the Travancore Nair Act and Travancore Ezhava Act (the relevant provisions are quoted in the common judgment) that so far as Hindu Nairs domiciled in the erstwhile Travancore area are concerned there is no scope for a contention that members of that community domiciled in the said area are following the Makkathayam Law of Succession. Based on that finding it was held that petitioners are not entitled to succeed in the appeals. Incidentally, this court also referred to the documents produced by petitioners in the first appellate court though, without an R.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2010 3 application for reception of additional evidence under Order XL1 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court held that in the absence of an application to receive additional evidence first appellate court was not bound to rely on the said documents. It was also observed that the said document also will not help petitioners in their contention that they followed Makkathayam Law of Succession. According to learned counsel for petitioners the said findings are not correct. 4. The common judgment stands on the finding that since the parties belonged to the Hindu Nair community and are domiciled in the erstwhile Travancore area question of their opting for any law of succession other than Marumakkathayam law in view of the provisions of the Travancore Nair Act (Section 1(2)) did not arise. That is a finding based on relevant provisions of the said Act and the Hindu Succession Act. The correctness of that finding cannot be challenged by a review petition reason being that a review is not a substitute for an appeal or, an occasion for a further hearing. 5. So far as the contention that documents produced do reveal that the parties were following Makkathayam Law of Succession is concerned, that question does not arise for a decision in view of my finding in the common judgment under challenge that the parties are governed by section 1(2) of the Travancore Nair Act (wrongly stated in the common judgment as section 2(1)) and hence it is the R.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2010 4 Marumakkathayam Law of Succession that is applicable. If the common judgment can be sustained on any one ground stated therein, fact that another ground stated is not correct on facts even if it is assumed so, is not a ground to review the common judgment under challenge. As such, there is no scope for entertaining these petitions. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/