IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 19285 of 2007(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. T.SUBHADRA, DAUGHTER OF N.V.PADMANABHAN, PAYITHALA HOUSE, PONMANA MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. 2. PRASANNA, DAUGHTER OF N.V.PADMANABHAN, PAYITHALA HOUSE, PONMANA MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. 3. BABURAJAN, SON OF N.V.PADMANABHAN, PAYITHALA HOUSE, PONMANA MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. 4. VIJAYAKUMAR, SON OF N.V.PADMANABHAN, PAYITHALA HOUSE, PONMANA MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------------- KERALA MINERAL AND METALS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KAUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 691 583. BY ADV. M/S.B.S.KRISHNAN ASSOCIATES, SC. KMML SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) NO.19285 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Petitioners along with one Sulekha are co-owners of 8.84 Ares of land in R.S.No.42/16, Block No.18 of Panmana Village, Kollam District. Property originally belonged to late Shri N.V.Padmanabhan. Petitioners are his children. In addition to the petitioners, Padmanabhan had another son by name Karunakaran, who is no more. Sulekha is the widow of Karunakaran. There was a proposal to purchase the property by the respondent. Initially all the petitioners executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Karunakaran and after his death, they executed another Power of Attorney in favour of Sulekha. There was an attempt to sell the property to the respondent. According to the petitioners in fact possession of the property was already handed over to the respondent and documents of title was also entrusted with the officers of the respondent Company. In the meanwhile difference of opinion developed between the petitioners on one side and Sulekha on the other. They are not in a position to execute the deed W.P(C) NO. 19285 OF 2007 -: 2 :- of conveyance. 2. The stand taken by the respondent is that unless all the co-owners together execute the sale deed, the Company did not want to purchase the property. Unless Sulekha, who is an admitted co-owner, also joins to execute the sale deed, the respondent cannot be compelled to purchase the undivided share of the petitioners alone. The only way out is to give some more time to the petitioners to make one more attempt to see whether a sale deed could be executed by all the co- owners of the property. If it is not possible, the respondent shall surrender possession of the property. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: Petitioners are given one months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to execute the sale deed along with Sulekha, widow of Karunakaran, in respect of the property. If it is not possible to execute the sale deed by all the co-owners, the petitioners shall inform the respondent their inability to execute the sale deed and the respondent shall surrender the property back to the person from whom possession was taken. The respondent shall return the documents of title also to the person from whom it W.P(C) NO. 19285 OF 2007 -: 3 :- was received, within two months from the date of receipt of the intimation from the petitioners. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- TH JANUARY, 2008