IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 869 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.888/2011 Dated 03/10/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VIGNESWARAN, S/O. IRUMPILLY PARAMBIL RAMAN ASTAMICHIRA DESOM, VADAKKUMBAGHAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP, BY HIS POER OF ATTORNEY, HARIHARAN, S/O. PERUMANATH, KUTTAPPAN, KIZHEKKEPPATTUKARA DESOM, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHEELA, W/O. LATE MATHEWS, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, THAZHEKKADU VILLAGE AND DESOM – 686 697. 2. ROMY, S/O. LATE MATHEWS, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, TAZHEKKADU VILLAGE & DESOM 686 697. 3. RAIMY D/.O. LATE MATHEWS, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, TAZHEKKADU VILLAGE & DESOM – 686 697. 4. BINU, D/O. LATE MATHEWS, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, TAZHEKKADU VILLAGE & DESOM – 686 697. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... R.P.No.869 of 2011 in RSA No.888 of 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 ORDER Petition is filed to review the judgment dated 3.10.2011. The case of the petitioner is that this court did not consider the impact of section 54 of Transfer of Property Act and as there was no parting of possession, it should have been found that the decree of courts below is not sustainable. Learned counsel submitted that as the respondent instituted O.S.1236 of 2009 seeking a decree for declaration, the findings of this court may not operate against the appellant in raising his contentions in the said suit. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the review petition, I do not find any apparent error or any other sufficient cause to review the judgment. The only question is whether appellant has established an oral agreement for sale. Findings of fact by the trial court was confirmed based on the evidence on record by the first appellate court. The factual finding was found to be correct. Appeal was dismissed as no Rp 869/2011 2 substantial question of law is involved. In such circumstances, no further observation is warranted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk