Kumaran Vs. Pankajam

Kumaran vs Pankajam

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 19, 2012

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1012573

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1012573
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Thomas P.Joseph
Decided On: Dec 19, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kumaran

Respondent

Pankajam

Excerpt

.....:- 4. the contesting defendants claimed that the plaint b schedule is a public way.5. the learned munsiff found acceptance for the case pleaded by the plaintiff and granted a decree. that was confirmed by the first appellate court. the 4th defendant has preferred this second appeal challenging finding of the courts below.6. the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the 9th defendant has sold the plaint a schedule and that the plaintiff or the 9th defendant has no subsisting interest over the plaint b schedule. it is also submitted that in the circumstances the plaintiff does not want to prosecute the case further and is prepared to withdraw the suit. the learned counsel submitted that he was not able to contact the 9th defendant and the above submission is made as per instruction given by the plaintiff.7. in the light of the above submission, it is not necessary to proceed with the suit and the second appeal. the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn as requested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. however, i am not going into the question as to how far this decision would bind the 9th defendant. resultantly, the second appeal is disposed of as under: s.a. no.880 of 1996 -:3. :- (i) o.s. no.99 of 1987 of the munsiff's court, tirur is dismissed as withdrawn. (ii) consequently, the judgment and decree in o.s. no.99 of 1987 and of the sub court, tirur in a.s. no.75 of 1990 will stand set aside. all pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. thomas p. joseph, judge. vsv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 28TH AGRAHAYANA 193 SA.NO. 880 OF 199.( ) ----------------------------------- AS.75/1990 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.99/1987 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, TIRUR APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/4TH DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- KUMARAN, S/O.CHETTIYAMTHODIYIL APPUKUTTAN ALIAS VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT TRIKANDIYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM IN TIRUR TALUK. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3.5 AND 6 TO 9.---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PANKAJAM, W/O.VARIKKOTTIL PANHAN, RESIDING AT TRIKANDIYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM IN TIRUR TALUK.

2. DAMODARAN, S/O.CHETTIYAMTHODIYIL KARAPPAN, DO. DO. DO.

3. MUKUNDAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, DO. DO. DO.

4. VIJAYA KUMARAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, DO. DO. DO. S.A. No.880 o”

5. NARAYANAN, S/O.CHETTIYAMTHODIYIL APPUKUTTAN, DO. DO. DO.

6. KUNHITTAMAN, S/O.KUTHANADIPARAMBIL KRISHNAN, DO.DO. DO.

7. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA.

8. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR.

9. PANHAN, S/O.VARIKKOTTIL KUMARAN, RESIDING AT TRIKANDIYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM IN TIRUR TALUK. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI T.KRISHNANUNNI R1 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY LESLIE R7 & R8 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

==================================== S.A. No.880 of 1996 ==================================== Dated this the 19th day of December, 2012 JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal arose from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Tirur in A.S. No.75 of 1990 confirming judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur in O.S. No.99 of 1987.

2. Since records of the case are reported to be destroyed in a fire and the same are not reconstructed, I have to refer to the copy of memorandum of Second Appeal and a copy of judgment of the trial court (the latter, given to me for perusal by the learned counsel).

3. The 1st respondent-plaintiff claimed that the plaint A schedule and the way described in the plaint B schedule belong to the 9th respondent, her husband. According to the plaintiff, the plaint B schedule is a private way leading to the plaint A schedule. The contesting defendants were permitted to make use of the plaint B schedule. They started causing obstruction to the user of the plaint B schedule. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for and on behalf of the 9th defendant who was not in station, seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction. S.A. No.880 of 1996 -:

2. :- 4. The contesting defendants claimed that the plaint B schedule is a public way.

5. The learned Munsiff found acceptance for the case pleaded by the plaintiff and granted a decree. That was confirmed by the first appellate court. The 4th defendant has preferred this Second Appeal challenging finding of the courts below.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the 9th defendant has sold the plaint A schedule and that the plaintiff or the 9th defendant has no subsisting interest over the plaint B schedule. It is also submitted that in the circumstances the plaintiff does not want to prosecute the case further and is prepared to withdraw the suit. The learned counsel submitted that he was not able to contact the 9th defendant and the above submission is made as per instruction given by the plaintiff.

7. In the light of the above submission, it is not necessary to proceed with the suit and the Second Appeal. The suit could be dismissed as withdrawn as requested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, I am not going into the question as to how far this decision would bind the 9th defendant. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is disposed of as under: S.A. No.880 of 1996 -:

3. :- (i) O.S. No.99 of 1987 of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur is dismissed as withdrawn. (ii) Consequently, the judgment and decree in O.S. No.99 of 1987 and of the Sub Court, Tirur in A.S. No.75 of 1990 will stand set aside. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Vsv

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2012 Same Parties Kumaran vs Pankajam Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Thomas P.Joseph