Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Prince Vs. Raghu

Prince vs Raghu

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 27, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1093278

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prince

Respondent

Raghu

Excerpt

.....exhibit p4: copy of the communication issued by the village officer, melur dated610.2012. exhibit p5: copy of the complaint submitted before the hon'ble chief minister of kerala. exhibit p6: copy of the message dated167.2011 regarding the further action on exhibit p5. respondents' exhibits : nil ----------------------- true copy pa to judge rkm p.r. ramachandra menon, j............................................................................... w.p.(c)no. 11638 of2013......................................................................... dated this the 27th september, 2013 judgment the petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers: "i) to call for the records relating to exhibits p1 to p6 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to register the property covered by document no.1035/1/2006 of sro, chalakkudy pending disposal of exhibits p1 and p2; ii) any other reliefs also may be granted in order to meet out justice considering the circumstances of the case." 2. the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner has already approached the sub court, irinjalakkuda by filing o.s.no.468 of 2012 for passing a decree for cancellation of a registered sale deed bearing no.1035/2006 of the sub registry, chalakkudy. the first respondent has filed a civil suit as o.s.no.276 of 2011 for evicting the petitioner from the concerned building, which is pending consideration before the munsiff's court, chalakkudy.3. the petitioner has sought to justify himself referring to the plea, as raised by the first respondent in o.s. 468 of 2012 w.p.(c)no. 11638 of20132 that there was some transaction with the bank and that the bank has initiated sarfaesi proceedings, in respect of which, s.a.75/2009 is pending before the drt, ernakulam; and hence the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. it is settled law that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred only in respect of the matters over which.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 11638 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OS4682012 of SUB COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA PETITIONER : -------------- PRINCE, AGED35YEARS, S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, POOLANI DESOM, MELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. RAGHU, AGED50YEARS, S/O JINARAJAN, KOKKUVEYIL, JANATHA AMBELIPADAM, PLOT NO.16, PANCHAVADI COLONY, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK - 682 019.

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY - 680 307. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RKM -2- WP(C).No. 11638 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : ------------------------ EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.468/2012 OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBTI P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.276/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKKUDY. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN O.S.NO.468/2012 OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MELUR DATED610.2012. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED167.2011 REGARDING THE FURTHER ACTION ON EXHIBIT P5. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE RKM P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 11638 OF2013......................................................................... Dated this the 27th September, 2013

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: "i) to call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P6 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to register the property covered by document No.1035/1/2006 of SRO, Chalakkudy pending disposal of Exhibits P1 and P2; ii) any other reliefs also may be granted in order to meet out justice considering the circumstances of the case." 2. The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner has already approached the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda by filing O.S.No.468 of 2012 for passing a decree for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed bearing No.1035/2006 of the Sub Registry, Chalakkudy. The first respondent has filed a Civil Suit as O.S.No.276 of 2011 for evicting the petitioner from the concerned building, which is pending consideration before the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy.

3. The petitioner has sought to justify himself referring to the plea, as raised by the first respondent in O.S. 468 of 2012 W.P.(C)No. 11638 OF20132 that there was some transaction with the Bank and that the Bank has initiated SARFAESI proceedings, in respect of which, S.A.75/2009 is pending before the DRT, Ernakulam; and hence the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. It is settled law that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only in respect of the matters over which power and jurisdiction stands transferred to the DRT and in respect of all other matters, except to the extent which specifically comes within the purview of the DRT, jurisdiction is still with the Civil Court. In any view of the matter, the main relief sought for in the writ petition virtually amounts to an interim relief, which could be sought for in the pending matters before the concerned Courts or can be agitated by way of other appropriate alternate remedy. Relegating the petitioner to avail the said remedy, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial