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.

Annamma Joseph Vs. Joseph

Annamma Joseph vs Joseph

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 25, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1130083

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
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Annamma Joseph

Respondent

Joseph

Excerpt

.....thodupuzha taluk, idukki district, pin685581. this op (civil) having come up for admission on2502-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: op(c).no. 580 of 2014 (o) -------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------------------- exhibit p1. ` copy of plaint in os no.59 of2013 exhibit p2. copy of the written statement in os no.59 of2013 exhibit p3. copy of the petition ia no.227 of2014 exhibit p4. copy of order dated142.14 in ia no.227 of 2014 in os no.59 of2013 respondent(s)' exhibits --------------------------------------- nil true copy p.a to judge smm v.chitambaresh,j.= = = = = = = = = = = o.p.(c) no.580 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = dated this the 25th day of february, 2014 judgment whether the transaction between the parties is a lease or a license depends upon the interpretation of the documents and the oral evidence adduced. the same cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under order xiv rule 2 (2) cpc as suggested by the petitioner /third defendant. such an issue could very well be framed in the suit and answered along with other issues.2. i do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference. the original petition fails and is dismissed. v.chitambaresh judge smm

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE25H DAYOF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 OP(C).No. 580 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OS592013 of SUB COURT,PALA PETITIONER: -------------------------- ANNAMMAJOSEPH, AGED65YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, CHERUVELIL HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBIL KULATHINAPADIKKAL, VALLICHIRA P.O, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIASM.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, AGED68YEARS, S/O.ZACHARIAH, VYPANAYIL HOUSE, CHENNADU P.O PIN686581, CHENNADU KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT2 ALEYAMMA, AGED60YEARS, W/O.SEBASTINE, KANDAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAINADY P.O PIN686534, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

3. GRIGORY, AGED66EARS, S/O.ZACHARIA, VYPANAYIL HOUSE, PULIYANOOR P.O PIN686573, PULIYANOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

4. ANTONY, AGED64YEARS, S/O.ZACHARIA, KAVANA,VYPANAYIL VAZHAKULAM P.O, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN686670.

5. ZCHARIA, AGED64YEARS, S/O.ZACHARIA, VYPANINIYIL HOUSE, PULIYANOOR P.O PIN686573, PULIYANOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. OP(C).No. 580 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- ----2--- 6. MICHAEL , AGED ABOUT63YEARS, S/O.ZACHARIA, MANGALATH HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM P.O PULIYANOOR VILALGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN686574.

7. MARIYAMMA, AGED65EARS, W/O.FRANCIS, RESIDING ATTC6797 , VATTIYOORKAVU P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN695013.

8. THOMAS, AGED62YEARS, S/O.ZACHARIA, VYPANANIL HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM P.O PULIYANOOR VILALGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALAPIN686574.

9. P.A.UTHUPPU, AGED70YEARS, S/O.IYPPE, PADATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581.

10. TOGO, AGED70EARS, S/O.UTHUPPU, PADAATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.UTHUPPU AGED70EARS, S/O.IYPPE, PADATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERRY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581.

11. TANCY D/O.UTHUPPU, PADAATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.UTHUPPU AGED70EARS, S/O.IYPPE, PADATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERRY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581.

12. TAJI AGED56YEARS, D/O.UTHUPPU, PADAATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.UTHUPPU AGED70EARS, S/O.IYPPE, PADATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERRY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581.

13. TOMI, AGED ABOUT44YEARS, S/O.UTHUPPU, PADAATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.UTHUPPU AGED70EARS,S/O.IYPPE, PADATHIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERRY P.O THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685581. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2502-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 580 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. ` COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.59 OF2013 EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.59 OF2013 EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE PETITION IA NO.227 OF2014 EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF ORDER

DATED142.14 IN IA NO.227 OF 2014 IN OS NO.59 OF2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No.580 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

Whether the transaction between the parties is a lease or a license depends upon the interpretation of the documents and the oral evidence adduced. The same cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 (2) CPC as suggested by the petitioner /third defendant. Such an issue could very well be framed in the suit and answered along with other issues.

2. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference. The Original petition fails and is dismissed. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial