Suhara Vs. Shareefa P.V.

Suhara vs Shareefa P.V.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 04, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1094421

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/1094421
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Decided On: Oct 04, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suhara

Respondent

Shareefa P.V.

Excerpt

.....have filed i.a.no.1179 of 2012 praying that the report dated 12.12.2011 may be remitted to the very same commissioner. by ext.p4 order passed on 1.7.2013, the court below after considering the rival contentions in detail directed as follows:- "in the result, (a) both the the petitions are allowed and the commissioner's report dated 12.12.2011 together with the plan, account, etc. attached to it are hereby remitted back to the very same commissioner. (b) issue a free copy of the order to the advocate commissioner. (c) the remuneration of the commissioner will be fixed after obtaining the commissioner's report." o.p.(c)no.2779 of 2013 2 the said order is under challenge in this original petition.2. when the original petition came up for hearing today, sri.c.r.sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the original petition may be disposed of with the observation that as regards the valuation of the building situate in the plaint schedule property is concerned, it will be open to the advocate commissioner to secure the services of an expert engineer. sri.b.krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not oppose the said request. in such circumstances, i dispose of this original petition with the observation that it will be open to the advocate commissioner appointed by the trial court to avail the services of an expert engineer for the purpose of valuing the building and other structures if any situate in the plaint schedule property. the expenses in that regard shall be met equally by all the sharers. any one among the sharers may move the court below for fixing the remuneration payable to the expert engineer. sd/- p.n.ravindran judge /true copy/ p.a. to judge vpv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE4H DAY OF OCTOBER201312TH ASWINA, 1935 OP(C).No. 2779 of 2013 (C) --------------------------- (AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER

IN I.A.NO.603/2012 AND I.A.NO.1179/2012 IN FDIA NO.1178/2009 IN O.S.NO.23/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, VATAKARA) PETITIONER: ----------- SUHARA, W/O.BASHEER AHAMMED, LAILA MANZIL, ICE ROAD, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHAREEFA P.V, AGED53YEARS, W/O.MOIDU HAJI, 'HADEEBA MANZIL' CHALLIVAYAL KAVIL ROAD POST, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN673614.

2. SUBAIDA P.V., W/O.P.V.ABDULLA, AGED50YEARS, 'VRINDAVAN', CHURCH ROAD, CHORODE POST, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - PIN673106.

3. KUNHIPATHU @ FATHIMA, W/O.ABDULLA, AGED44YEARS, "SAFA", FIRE STATION ROAD, PAZHANKAVU, NUT STREET POST, VATAKARA, NOW RESIDING AT592, THANGAI NILAYAM, TIPPASANDRA, G.M.PALAYA, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 560017 4. AASYA P.V., W/O.SUBAIR, AGED41YEARS, 'MILAN', NEAR AZHCHAVATTOM SCHOOL, AZHCHAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE,PIN - 673007. R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0410-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2779 of 2013 (C) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------- EXT.P-1: COPY OF THE O.S.NO.23/08. EXT.P-2: COPY OF THE DECREE AND JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.23/2008 DATED288.2009 EXT.P-3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN FDIA NO.1178/09 IN O.S.NO.23/2008. EXT.P-4: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER

DATED17.2013 IN I.A.NO.603/2012 AND I.A.NO.1179/2012 IN FDIA NO.1178/09 IN O.S.NO.23/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------- //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P.(C)No.2779 of 2013 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vatakara. The respondents are the defendants therein. In that suit a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 28.8.2009. The final decree proceedings are pending as I.A.No.1178 of 2009. The Commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings filed a report dated 12.12.2011. Respondents 3 and 4 in the final decree application have filed I.A.No.603 of 2012 and respondents 1 and 2 in the final decree application have filed I.A.No.1179 of 2012 praying that the report dated 12.12.2011 may be remitted to the very same Commissioner. By Ext.P4 order passed on 1.7.2013, the court below after considering the rival contentions in detail directed as follows:- "In the result, (a) both the the petitions are allowed and the commissioner's report dated 12.12.2011 together with the plan, account, etc. attached to it are hereby remitted back to the very same commissioner. (b) Issue a free copy of the order to the advocate commissioner. (c) The remuneration of the commissioner will be fixed after obtaining the commissioner's report." O.P.(C)No.2779 of 2013 2 The said order is under challenge in this original petition.

2. When the original petition came up for hearing today, Sri.C.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the original petition may be disposed of with the observation that as regards the valuation of the building situate in the plaint schedule property is concerned, it will be open to the Advocate Commissioner to secure the services of an expert engineer. Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not oppose the said request. In such circumstances, I dispose of this original petition with the observation that it will be open to the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court to avail the services of an expert engineer for the purpose of valuing the building and other structures if any situate in the plaint schedule property. The expenses in that regard shall be met equally by all the sharers. Any one among the sharers may move the court below for fixing the remuneration payable to the expert engineer. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE /true copy/ P.A. To Judge vpv

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Suhara vs Shareefa P.V. Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon