IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 CRP.No. 342 of 2006() --------------------- CMA.37/2004 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.71/2006 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT/IST DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- VASU MASTER, S/O.KODERI KUNHAN VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT IRINGALLUR, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOPALAN VYDIAR, S/O.KURUNHIKKATTIL THAMI VYDIAR, RESIDING AT MURUNHIKKATTIL, IRINGALLUR AMSOM DESOM, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI. 2. P.V.JANAKI, W/O.LATE KUNCHU, IRRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI. 3. SASIKUMAR, S/O.LATE KUNCHU, IRRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI. 4. JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE KUNCHU, IRRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI. 5. ANIILKUMAR, S/O.LATE KUNCHU, IRRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI. 6. CHANDRIKA, D/O.LATE KUNCHU AND W/O.CHERUTTY, AMARAMBALAM SOUTH, VANIYAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. SANTHAKUMAR, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT KURUNNIKKATTIL, IRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, IRINGALLOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK. 8. PRAMOD, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT KURUNNIKKATTIL, IRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, IRINGALLOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK. 9. PRAMEETHA, D/O.LATE BHASKARAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT KURUNNIKKATTIL, IRINGALLOOR AMSOM DESOM, IRINGALLOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK. 10. CHANDINI, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT KURUNNIKKATTIL, IRINGALOOR AMSOM DESOM, IRINGALLOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK. 11. SANTHAKUMARI, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT KURUNNIKKATTIL, IRINGALLOOR AMSOM DESOM, IRINGALLOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK. * 12. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.PALLATH CHATHUNNI, (DELETED) RESIDING AT IRINGALLOOR, VENGARA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. * 13. PUSHPALATHA, D/O.LATE KUNCHU, (DELETED) KONNAKODU HOUSE, MANKADA (VIA), PERINTHALMANNA. ( RESPONDENTS 12 AND 13 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 20.11.2007 ON I.A. 492/2007) ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) FOR R1 TO R11 SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1 TO R11 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 TO R11 SRI.HARISH R. MENON FOR R1 TO R11 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.1490 OF 2006 IN C.R.P NO.342 OF 2006 DISMISSED 14.11.2008 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.342 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November , 2008 ORDER The 1st defendant in O.S. 71/1996 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi is the revision petitioner. The main prayers in the said suit which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs are for a declaration that purchase certificate issued in pursuance of the order of the Land Tribunal, Vengara, was obtained fraudulently by the revision petitioner/ 1st defendant, in respect of the suit property and in derogation of the legal provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was also pleaded in the suit for a declaration that an assignment deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant with respect to the plaint schedule property on the basis of the above said purchase certificate was void and not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs and for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property and other ancillary reliefs. 2. In the objection statement filed by the revision petitioner/ 1st defendant it was interalia contended that the valuation of the property was not correct, that proper court fee was not paid, that the Munsiff court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The revision petitioner/1st defendant has also pleaded in the additional written statement that the market value of the property was not properly shown by the Commissioner and therefore prayed for the return of the plaint to the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 10(A) for presentation before the proper court. 3. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the issuance of C.R.P No. 342 of 2006 -2- purchase certificate is without issuing notice to themselves and the said document is a void document. It is also contended that subsequent to the assignment deed executed by the revision petitioner/1st defendant on the basis of that purchase certificate is also void and the same is not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs or the plaint schedule property. Further, it is contended that since the order of the Land Tribunal and the assignment deed are obtained by fraud and collusion and if so, there is no necessity to seek a decree for cancellation of document .In para 9 of the plaint, the respondents/plaintiffs have specifically stated that the documents referred to are void the respondents/plaintiffs need seek only a decree for declaration. The 1st defendant contended that a suit for declaration of such document as void alone is not sufficient as the respondents/plaintiffs cannot just ignore the document, on the other hand, they have to seek the remedy of setting aside the document on the ground of fraud as alleged by them. 4. I am of the view that, if the document under challenge is a void document, there is no necessity for the respondents/plaintiffs to file a suit for setting aside the document. No doubt, a purchase certificate obtained by fraud or collusion behind the back of the owner of the property, without notice to him so far as the owner is concerned is a void document,. It is the well settled law in the reported cases viz. Kumaran C.R.P No. 342 of 2006 -3- Vs. Chandran 1985 KLT SN 43 Case No.69 , Karuna Kuris & Finance Vs. Kunju Vareed,1999 (2) KLT 118 , Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University KLT 2001(3)SN.67 Case No.87 & Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh Vs. Paras Nath Singh and others AIR 2002 SC 233 5. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge passed by the Subordinate Court,Tirur in the C.M.Appeal 37/2004. There will be no order as to costs. The suit was instituted in the year 1996 . In view of the long pendency of the suit, I direct the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi to dispose of the suit within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- C.R.P No. 342 of 2006 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 12th November, 2008