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.

Ramakrishnan Vs. Gopinathan

Ramakrishnan vs Gopinathan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 25, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1130086

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramakrishnan

Respondent

Gopinathan

Excerpt

.....--3--- exhibit p15. copy of the sanction granted by bhaskaran brother of the petitioner. respondent(s)' exhibits --------------------------------------- nil true copy p.a to judge smm v.chitambaresh,j.= = = = = = = = = = = o.p.(c) no.579 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = dated this the 25th day of february, 2014 judgment only an order to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit has been passed in i.a no.1337/2013 for temporary injunction. the court below was therefore perfectly justified in refusing police aid to enforce that order as sought in i.a no.2731/2013.2. interest of justice would be met by directing the court below to dispose of i.a no. 1337/2013 finally on merits. the court of the principal munsiff of cherthala shall do so in o.s no.279/2013 within a period of one month.3. the petitioner is free to move afresh for police aid dependant on the final orders passed in i.a no.1337/2013. the same shall be considered untrammelled by the observations contained the order in i.a no.2731/2013. the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to lay pipes beneath the road shall also be considered simultaneously. o.p.(c) no.579 of 2014 2 4. there is however no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference. the original petition 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. 579 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OS2792013 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA DATED PETITIONER -------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN S/O.KOCHUNARAYANAN, PUTHUVALNIKARTHIL CHENNAMPALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.BHASKARAN, AMRUTHALAYAM, CHENNAMPALLIPURAM MURI PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 541. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT ---------------------------- GOPINATHAN S/O.PADMANABHAN , VELITHEDATHU VADAKKEKARIYIL CHENNAMPALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAFGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.-688541 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2502-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 579 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS27913 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA DATED304.13. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION IN CMP NO.282/13 IN OS NO.279/13 DATED304.13. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER

GRANTED BY THE COURT BELOW IN CMP NO.282/13 IN CMP NO.280/13 DATED0205.13. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE REPORT (COVERING LETTER) SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION IN CMP NO.280/13/ EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION IN CMP NO.280/13. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION IN CMP NO.280/13 EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CMP NO.282/13 IN CMP NO.280/13 IN OS NO. 279/13 DATED1605.13. EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE ORDER

PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN IA NO.1337/13 IN OS NO.279/13 DATED0406.13. EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS NO.279/13 DATED2111.13. EXHIBIT P10.COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.277/13 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA. EXHIBIT P11. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS NO.277/13 DATED1208.13. EXHIBIT P12. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.2731/13 IN OS NO.279/13 DATED0110.13. EXHIBIT P13. COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO.2731/13 IN OS NO.279/13 DATED2510.13. EXHIBIT P14. COPY OF THE ORDER

PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN IA NO.2731/13 IN OS NO.279/13 DATED0412.13. OP(C).No. 579 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- --3--- EXHIBIT P15. COPY OF THE SANCTION GRANTED BY BHASKARAN BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No.579 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

Only an order to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit has been passed in I.A No.1337/2013 for temporary injunction. The court below was therefore perfectly justified in refusing police aid to enforce that order as sought in I.A No.2731/2013.

2. Interest of justice would be met by directing the court below to dispose of I.A No. 1337/2013 finally on merits. The Court of the Principal Munsiff of Cherthala shall do so in O.S No.279/2013 within a period of one month.

3. The petitioner is free to move afresh for police aid dependant on the final orders passed in I.A No.1337/2013. The same shall be considered untrammelled by the observations contained the order in I.A No.2731/2013. The entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to lay pipes beneath the road shall also be considered simultaneously. O.P.(C) No.579 of 2014 2 4. There is however no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference. The Original Petition is dismissed. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial