Simon Vs. K V Paul

Simon vs K V Paul

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 18, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1127771

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/1127771
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice N.K.Balakrishnan
Decided On: Feb 18, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Simon

Respondent

K V Paul

Excerpt

.....by this court on 18.10.2013 in w.p.(c) nos.20008/2010 and 23590/2010. it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners that w.p.(c) no.23590/2010 pertains to o.s.no.33/2009, which is pending before the trial court. the judgment can only be in respect of w.p.(c) no.20008/2010. therefore, whatever is said in the judgment dated 18.10.2013 pertaining to w.p.(c) no.23590/ 2010 shall stand deleted.3. it is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in paragraph 15 of the judgment, a sentence has crept in as : "it is the admitted fact that the defendant church is a public religious charitable trust governed by '1934 constitution'." r.p. no.47of 2014 in w.p.(c) no.23590/2010 and r.p.no.48 of 2014 in w.p.(c) no.20008/2010 -:2. :- it is pointed out that whether the defendant church is a "public religious charitable trust governed by 1934 constitution" is actually the dispute involved in the suit and that is not an admitted fact. that is seen to be error apparent on the face of the record. hence, that sentence will also remain deleted from paragraph 15 of the judgment.4. with regard to w.p.(c) no.23590/2010, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, as the suit, o.s.no.33/2009 is pending, the defendants can raise the question as to the maintainability of the suit under sec.12 of the cpc. hence, w.p.(c) no.23590/2010 will stand disposed of giving liberty to the defendants to raise the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit under sec.12 of cpc in that suit. both review petitions are disposed of accordingly. sd/- n.k.balakrishnan, judge. //true copy// p.a. to judge jvt

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE18H DAY OF FEBRUARY201429TH MAGHA, 1935 RP.No. 47 of 2014 (O) IN WP(C).23590/2010 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

IN WP(C) 20008/2010 & 23590/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD.18.10.2013 ------------------ PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS :- ---------------------------- 1. SIMON T.GEORGE, AGED68YEARS S/O.GEORGE, KILIMANGALAM HOUSE, NECHOOR KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

2. N.P.KURIAKOSE, AGED61YEARS S/O.PATHROSE, NADUVILEDATHU PUTHENPURAYIL EZHAKKARANADU, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.AMMU CHARLES RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- --------------------------- 1. K V PAUL,, AGED58YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KOZHIKKOTTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, NECHOOR KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

2. K.C.JOY,, AGED61YEARS S/O.CHACKO, KAYYALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NECHUR KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

3. K.P.JOY,, AGED47YEARS, S/O.PAILY, RESIDING AT KARIMBALAKKAL HOUSE, NECHUR KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

4. FR. P.M.KURIAKOSE, MOOLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PRIEST, ST.THOMAS CHURCH, NECHUR, RESIDING AT MOOLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, NECHUR KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

5. T.K.JOY,, AGED49YEARS S/O.KURIAN, THADATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, NECHUR KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. RP.No. 47 of 2014 (O) IN WP(C).23590/2010 6. SOJAN P ABRAHAM, AGED48YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, PUNCHALAYIL, PAZHOOR P.O. KAROOR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE.

7. RAJU JOHN,, AGED58YEARS, S/O.JOHN NADUVELEDATHU PUTHENPURAYIL (VETTIKUZHIYIL HOUSE) EZHAKARANADU, MANEED VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R3 TO R5 BY ADV.SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1802-2014 ALONG WITH R.P.No.48/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt RP.No. 47 of 2014 (O) IN WP(C).23590/2010 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure A1 :- True copy of the order dated 29.10.2009 in I.A.No.3653 of 2009. Annexure A2 :- True copy of the plaint in O.S.No.203 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Annexure A3 :- True copy of the Civil Appeal No.2036 of 2010 before the Supreme Court of India. Annexure A4 :- True copy of Order in SLP No.4734 of 2010. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A.to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

-------------------------------- R.P. No.47of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.23590/2010 and R.P.No.48 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.20008/2010 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February 2014 ORDER

Both review petitions are heard together.

2. A common judgment was passed by this Court on 18.10.2013 in W.P.(C) Nos.20008/2010 and 23590/2010. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners that W.P.(C) No.23590/2010 pertains to O.S.No.33/2009, which is pending before the trial court. The judgment can only be in respect of W.P.(C) No.20008/2010. Therefore, whatever is said in the judgment dated 18.10.2013 pertaining to W.P.(C) No.23590/ 2010 shall stand deleted.

3. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in paragraph 15 of the judgment, a sentence has crept in as : "It is the admitted fact that the defendant church is a Public Religious Charitable Trust governed by '1934 Constitution'." R.P. No.47of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.23590/2010 and R.P.No.48 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.20008/2010 -:

2. :- It is pointed out that whether the defendant church is a "Public Religious Charitable Trust governed by 1934 Constitution" is actually the dispute involved in the suit and that is not an admitted fact. That is seen to be error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, that sentence will also remain deleted from paragraph 15 of the judgment.

4. With regard to W.P.(C) No.23590/2010, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, as the suit, O.S.No.33/2009 is pending, the defendants can raise the question as to the maintainability of the suit under Sec.12 of the CPC. Hence, W.P.(C) No.23590/2010 will stand disposed of giving liberty to the defendants to raise the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit under Sec.12 of CPC in that suit. Both review petitions are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge Jvt

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Simon vs K V Paul Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice N.K.Balakrishnan