IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 307 of 2011(A) ------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN SA.NO.427/1998 DATED 08/02/2011] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ------------------------------- NANALAL, S/O. VICHAND, AGED 50 YEARS, DOOR NO.12/279, HALWA BAZAR NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. C.P.AYISHABI, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. C.P.PATHUMABI, MUTHAVALLY OF HAJI ALI BARAMI WAKH, BARAMI MANSIL, KUNDUNGAL, CALICUT-3. (DIED) 2. C.P.ABDUL KHADER BARAMI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. THE LATE P.V. ALI BARAMI, DOING BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 4/318, "OASIS", GANDHI ROAD, NADAKKAVU KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. (DIED) 3. C.P.AHAMAD BARAMI, 12/721, P.S.HOUSE, THANGALS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI. K.M. FIROZ. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, ALONG WITH R.P. NO.324/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- R.P.Nos. 307 and 324 of 2011 in S.A.Nos. 427 and 426 of 1998 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 ORDER These review petitions are directed against the judgment dated 8.02.2011 in S.A. Nos.426/1998 and 427/1998. 2. According to the review petitioner, this court proceeded on a wrong premises that contention of the review petitioners was that registration of the property in the wakf was a sham transaction. The respondent claims to have registered the plaint schedule property with the Wakf Board during the year 1983 and the door number of the building at that time was 12/221. During that period building bearing number 12/279 was a totally different property owned by one Kunjahammed Koya. This basic aspect had not been noticed by this court while disposing of the second appeal and it constitute an error apparent on the face of record. This court dismissed the S.A. and the same is liable to be reviewed. R.P.No. 307 and 324 of 2011 2 3. The contentions are without any basis whatsoever. The above aspect was considered in paragraph 8 of the judgment. Further, the present contention has no foundation in the pleadings before the court below. It is to be noted that the present contention had not raised either before the trial court or before the lower appellate court. The review petitions are without any merits and they are dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln