IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 1043 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.900/2009 Dated 18/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER / APPELLANT : ------------------------------------------------------ KOODALIYAN RAGHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. THALA, RESIDING AT VELLARAVALLY AMSOM, KUNOTHALA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT. MANJU R. KARTHA RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------ 1. KUNNUMPURATH WILSON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MANATHANA AMSOM & DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. KOODALIYIL THALA, D/O. CHEERAKUTTY, AGED 91 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELLARAVALLY AMSOM, KUNITHALA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. (DIED). 3. KOODALIYIL NARAYANI, D/O. THALA, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELLARAVALLY AMSOM, KUNITHALA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.1043 of 2010 in R.S.A. No.900 of 2009 & C.M. Appl. No.936 of 2010 in R.P. No.1043 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Delay in filing the Review Petition is of 325 days. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am satisfied that delay is explained. Hence application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. A judgment which was pronounced in the Second Appeal on 18.11.2009 after hearing learned counsel for petitioner-appellant at the admission stage is sought to be reviewed by this Review Petition. 3. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S. No.549 of 1998 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kuthuparamba filed by the first respondent for a declaration of title and prohibitory injunction. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that property is not properly identified. First respondent took up the matter in appeal. Appellate court, relying on Exts.C1 and C2 marked in the suit upheld title claimed over the suit property and granted relief as R.P No.1043 of 2010 in R.S.A.No.900 of 2009 -: 2 :- prayed for. That judgment and decree were challenged in R.S.A. No.900 of 2009. 4. When the matter came up for admission this Court observed that so far as disputed issue regarding identification of the suit property is concerned, petitioner/appellant/second defendant has not produced the document of title in his favour regarding the property he claimed to have acquired from the first defendant in the year 1981. This Court also observed, referring to other documents on record that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the first appellate court regarding identity of property and refused to admit the appeal. 5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner- appellant-second defendant that document of title relied on by petitioner formed part of Ext.X1 series summoned on request of the first respondent and that when the Second Appeal was argued at the time of admission learned counsel could not point out that document from Ext.X1 series. Learned counsel contends that the document of title among Ext.X1 series would show that petitioner has acquired title and possession over 75 cents from out of 1.02 acres belonging to the first defendant. 6. Learned counsel for respondents contended that the R.P No.1043 of 2010 in R.S.A.No.900 of 2009 -: 3 :- said document is not sufficient to interfere with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. According to the learned counsel though the document of title in favour of first defendant stated extent of the property she acquired as 35 x 35 for six feet koles (1.02 acres), actual extent was 1.50 acres out of which 75 cents towards east was allegedly assigned to the petitioner as per the document of 1981 and the remaining 75 cents towards western side was owned by the first defendant. In that view of the matter there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, it is argued. 7. But such a deeper consideration of the question on merit is not required in a petition for review. When a request for review is made what is to be considered is only whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record. It is admitted that document of title in favour of petitioner is part of Ext.X1 series. May be because counsel for petitioner did not point out the same, this Court did not refer to that document at the time the Second Appeal was disposed of at the admission stage and instead, made an observation that document of title in favour of petitioner is not produced. That in my view is an error apparent on the face of the record. What will be the effect of perusing of R.P No.1043 of 2010 in R.S.A.No.900 of 2009 -: 4 :- that document in the appeal filed by the petitioner is a matter to be decided in the appeal itself. In that view of the matter I am inclined to allow the Review Petition. Resultantly, Review Petition is allowed. Judgment dated 18.11.2009 in R.S.A. No.900 of 2009 is reviewed. Post the R.S.A for admission before the appropriate Bench. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv