IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10217 of 2008(N) -------------------------- LAR.53/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MRINAKUMARY ,D/O. KESAVAN KUMARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KIZHAKKANIYATH VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 10217 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed for setting aside the judgment in Ext.P6 and setting aside Ext.P7 order and allow I.A.No.28/2008 in L.A.R.No.53/2000, on the file of Sub Court, Kollam. Property belonging to the writ petitioner was acquired by the Government. She got the property by virtue of a settlement deed. A reading of the settlement deed would reveal that the executant had reserved the right to enjoy the income till his death and thereafter it has to be taken by the person in whose favour the document has been executed. When the land acquisition proceedings were initiated the daughter gave Ext.P3 authorisation whereby the father was permitted to receive the amount on her behalf. Since father is a life estate holder and has been authorised to receive the amount on her behalf, the father preferred the application for reference which has been referred to the Sub court. The Sub Judge is of the view that since the absolute owner of the property is the writ petitioner and as she W.P.(C).No. 10217 OF 2008 2 has not preferred any application for reference the reference is not maintenable and returned the reference. These matters have to be viewed in two angles. One is that the father has been authorised to receive the amount and secondly, the father by virtue of document itself is entitled to appropriate income from the property thereby postponing the derivation of income by the writ petitioner. So the father is not a person who does not have any interest in the property. His interest is limited. But it is amplified by the authorisation to receive the amount on behalf of her daughter as well. It is that father who so authorised files an application for reference under the act. So on his death when the daughter comes into the picture as legal representative, she is entitled to have two fold contentions and therefore the reference cannot be said to be bad. If there is any legal implication which totally prohibits, it is a matter that could be looked into by the court. The court would consider the entire reference on merits. Therefore I set aside the judgment of the court below and direct the Sub Judge, Kollam to implead the writ petitioner as a claimant and hear the matter after adducing evidence and dispose of it in accordance with law. The legal entitlements etc. W.P.(C).No. 10217 OF 2008 3 all can be considered by the court after hearing both sides at the time of final disposal of the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE bkn/-