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.

David, vs Kunji,

DAVID, vs KUNJI,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 01, 2024
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1298159

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
SA/232/2000

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

DAVID,

Respondent

KUNJI,

Excerpt

.....02.02.2001 on statement dated 23.09.2000 bearing cf.no.3565/2000) 2 kumaran, agent, bus stand, residing at .do. .do. (it is recorded that r2 died nobody need be impleaded his lr's vide since his lr's are already in the party array as per order dated 07.04.2003 on statement dated 04.01.2003 vide cf.no.726/2003). 3 kunjunni alias unni, driver, residing at .do. .do. vijayan, merchant, residing at .do. .do. 5 mohanan, binding work in press, residing at .do. .do. 6 kuttappu alias janardhanan, lorry broker, residing at .do. .do. ( it is recorded that r1,r4 and r6 are dead and that respondents 2,3,5 and 7 are the lr's of the deceased r1, r4 and r6 and nobody else need be impleaded vide order dated 07.04.2003 memo dated 21.03.2003 vide cf.no.1532/03, 1531/03, 1535/03 respectively.) 7 sitha, wife of pallikkara madhavan, residing in pandallur desom, chowannur village, p.o. choondal. by adv sri.t.a.rajagopalan this second appeal having come up for admission on 01.04.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentanil k. narendran, j.the appellant is the plaintiff in o.s.no.193 of 1992, a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, on the file of the munsiff’s court, wadakkanchery, and the appellant in a.s.no.84 of 1998 on the file of the sub court, thrissur. by the common judgment and decree dated 31.03.1995, the munsiff court dismissed o.s.no.193 of 1992 and the connected matters. challenging the judgment and decree in o.s.no.193 of 1992, the appellant filed a.s.no.84 of 1998 before the sub court, thrissur, which was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1999. feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this court in this second appeal.2. on 06.04.2000, when this second appeal came up foradmission, this court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents on the substantial question of law mentioned in the memorandum of appeal.3. today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN A.S.NO.84 OF 1998 DATED 17.07.1999, ON APPEAL FROM O.S.NO.193 OF 1992 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY APPELLANT (APPELLANT - PLAINTIFF): DAVID, SON OF CHERUVATHOOR UDUPPURU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MANJERI, PARAYIL ANGADI, KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. RESPONDENT (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 / DEFENDANTS 1 TO 7): 1 KUNJI, WIFE OF LATE PALLATHUR VELUKUTTY, RESIDING AT NEPPAN ROAD, KAVANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. (IT IS RECORDED THAT R1, R4 AND R6 ARE DEAD AND THAT R2, R3, R5 AND R7 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED R1, R4 AND R6 AND NOBODY NEED BE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2001 ON STATEMENT DATED 23.09.2000 BEARING CF.NO.3565/2000) 2 KUMARAN, AGENT, BUS STAND, RESIDING AT .DO. .DO. (IT IS RECORDED THAT R2 DIED NOBODY NEED BE IMPLEADED HIS LR'S VIDE SINCE HIS LR'S ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 07.04.2003 ON STATEMENT DATED 04.01.2003 VIDE CF.NO.726/2003). 3 KUNJUNNI ALIAS UNNI, DRIVER, RESIDING AT .DO. .DO. VIJAYAN, MERCHANT, RESIDING AT .DO. .DO. 5 MOHANAN, BINDING WORK IN PRESS, RESIDING AT .DO. .DO. 6 KUTTAPPU ALIAS JANARDHANAN, LORRY BROKER, RESIDING AT .DO. .DO. ( IT IS RECORDED THAT R1,R4 AND R6 ARE DEAD AND THAT RESPONDENTS 2,3,5 AND 7 ARE THE LR'S OF THE DECEASED R1, R4 AND R6 AND NOBODY ELSE NEED BE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.04.2003 MEMO DATED 21.03.2003 VIDE CF.NO.1532/03, 1531/03, 1535/03 RESPECTIVELY.) 7 SITHA, WIFE OF PALLIKKARA MADHAVAN, RESIDING IN PANDALLUR DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, P.O. CHOONDAL. BY ADV SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.193 of 1992, a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Wadakkanchery, and the appellant in A.S.No.84 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. By the common judgment and decree dated 31.03.1995, the Munsiff Court dismissed O.S.No.193 of 1992 and the connected matters. Challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.193 of 1992, the appellant filed A.S.No.84 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, which was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1999. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in this second appeal.

2. On 06.04.2000, when this second appeal came up for

admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents on the substantial question of law mentioned in the memorandum of appeal.

3. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that the appellant does not want to prosecute this appeal further and therefore, the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this second appeal is dismissed as not pressed. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE MIN

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial