IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1107 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.1121/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: KOCHUMOHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KARUVILLY VEETTIL KUNJUPILLA, PERUMANI KARA, VENGOLA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SMT.T.V.SREEJA SMT.FASHIYA YOUSEFF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. MAKKAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHEMMALAKKUDY THACHIYIL VEETTIL, NEENAKKUNJU, CHELAKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KARUVILLY VEETTIL ABDUL KHADER, MEPRATHUPADY KARA, -DO- VILLAGE. 3. PATHUMMA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.KARUVILLY MUKALORKUDY VEETTIL ALIYAR, PERUMANI KARA, -DO- VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. ----------------------- R.P.No.1107 of 2008 in R.S.A.No.1121 of 2007 ----------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed by the appellant/ petitioner for review of the judgment in R.S.A.No. 1121/07 dated 21.7.2008. The reason alleged for review is that the appellant/petitioner was not aware of existence of certain important facts and bring it to the notice either of the trial court or of the appellate court or of this Court and that those facts, which have now come to light may also be allowed to be urged. 2. It is contended for the appellant/petitioner that this Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself holding that Exhibit B1 gift deed had not come into effect for the reason that there was no evidence to show that Pathumma/the donee had acted on the basis of the said gift deed, which would suggest that it had been accepted by her. What the petitioner wants is to let in RP 1107/08 2 additional evidence produced along with I.A.No. 2340/08 to contend that the gift has taken effect as Pathumma had accepted the gift. 3. Annexure-2 agreement is alleged to have been entered into between Pathumma and Abdul Karim for sale of an item of property, wherein, Aliyar, the husband of Pathumma, is a witness. According to the learned counsel, the property so agreed to be sold is the property covered by Exhibit B1 gift deed. He further submits that O.S.No.325/94 was filed for specific performance on the basis of Annexure-2 agreement; that vide Annexure-2(a) judgment, the suit was being dismissed as not pressed; that Annexure-2(b) is the decree in the said suit and that it will show that the gift had taken effect and that Pathumma had come into possession of the property. 4. It is worthy to note that Abdul Karim, who instituted O.S.No.325/94 on the basis of the alleged Annexure-2 agreement, has abandoned the RP 1107/08 3 case and the suit was being dismissed as not pressed. It is not known as to whether Annexure-2 agreement was genuine or not and as to whether, the attestor therein is Aliyar, the husband of Pathumma. These are all matters which ought to have been agitated before the trial court producing these documents when only the genuineness or otherwise of Annexure-2 agreement can be impeached by the rival party and the court can adjudge as to the genuineness. If at all Annexure-2 agreement had been there, Pathumma/the third respondent would not have contended in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that the property gifted under Exhibit B1 continued to be in possession of Aliyar himself and that he was taking the yield therefrom. At this juncture, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the maintenance proceedings before the Magistrate was in 1979, whereas, Annexure-2 agreement was in 1994. Exhibit B1 gift deed was of the year 1977. Even in 1979, RP 1107/08 4 when the maintenance proceedings was being prosecuted by Pathumma, if she was not in possession of the property, it is beyond comprehension as to when and how she came into possession of the property subsequent to 1979. The additional documents produced by the petitioner do not any in way improve the case of the appellant/petitioner. Further, production of additional documents after the disposal of the appeal is not a ground to review the judgment. For all the above reasons, the Review Petition is dismissed. 29th October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv