Yousaf Vs. Jacob

Yousaf vs Jacob

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 29, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1016741

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/1016741
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Decided On: Jul 29, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yousaf

Respondent

Jacob

Excerpt

.....and there is mixing up of the survey numbers as can be seen from paragraph 3 of said statement. recording that, we are of the view that the impugned judgment can be vacated without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and the parties can be relegated to the court below since it may be required that the parties have to think over as to whether any rectification filed may have to be placed before the court below. hence, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside without expressing anything on merits and the case is r.f.a.no. 928 o”2. remitted to the court below in the light of what is aforesaid. all issues are kept open. parties will be at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs, as may be necessary including interlocutory. since the remand is necessitated on account of quality of records that are available as of now in this case we order refund of the entire court fee paid on this appeal. parties are directed to mark appearance before the court below on 26th august, 2013. the order of impleadment as contained in the order dated 26-11-2012 in this appeal is recalled hereby. appeal is ordered accordingly. (thottathil b.radhakrishnan, judge) (babu mathew p.joseph, judge) ma r.f.a.no. 928 o”3. r.f.a.no. 928 of 2012 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE 29TH DAY OF JULY2013/7TH SRAVANA, 1935 RFA.No. 928 of 2012 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS NO.33/2010 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM DATED 31 10-2012 ... APPELLANT(S)/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------- YOUSAF,AGED 3 YEARS, S/O. MUKHARIKKUNNATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KALAPPARA HOUSE, CHELAKKARA VILALGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------ JACOB, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.VENGALLOOR THOMAS, KANJAKKULAMKARA HOUSE, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHANAGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ”

101. *ADDL.R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED: R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED: R2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS IN THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26 11/2012. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH R2 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

------------------------- R.F.A.No. 928 of 2012 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.

We record the statement dated 18th July, 2013 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mannarkad produced along with I.A No.1501 of 2013 filed by the Special Government Pleader (Forests). That statement is to the effect that the land involved in this litigation is revenue land and there is mixing up of the survey numbers as can be seen from paragraph 3 of said statement. Recording that, we are of the view that the impugned judgment can be vacated without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and the parties can be relegated to the court below since it may be required that the parties have to think over as to whether any rectification filed may have to be placed before the court below. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside without expressing anything on merits and the case is R.F.A.No. 928 o”

2. remitted to the court below in the light of what is aforesaid. All issues are kept open. Parties will be at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs, as may be necessary including interlocutory. Since the remand is necessitated on account of quality of records that are available as of now in this case we order refund of the entire court fee paid on this appeal. Parties are directed to mark appearance before the court below on 26th August, 2013. The order of impleadment as contained in the order dated 26-11-2012 in this appeal is recalled hereby. Appeal is ordered accordingly. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (Babu Mathew P.Joseph, Judge) ma R.F.A.No. 928 o”

3. R.F.A.No. 928 of 2012 4

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Yousaf vs Jacob Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan