V.T.Narayanan vs Gopalan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 01, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1330301

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/1330301
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan
Decided On: Jun 01, 2023
Case Number: AS/647/2000

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.T.Narayanan

Respondent

Gopalan

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice sathish ninan thursday, the 1st day of june 2023 / 11th jyaishta, 1945 as no. 647 of 2000 against the decree and judgment in os 60/1990 of sub court, hosdrug. as 144/1998 of district court, kasaragod. appellant/plaintiff : v.t.narayanan, aged 44 years, son of raman, hindu, agriculturist, residing at malam in thayannur village, hosdurug taluk p.o. thayannur kasaragod district. by advs.kodoth pushparajan & prabha r.menon. respondents/defendants :1 gopalan, aged 42 years, son of raman, agriculturist, residng at malam in thayannur village p.o, thayannur, hosdrug taluk, kasaragod district. 2 undachi, aged 53 years, d/o. raman wife of kunhikannan, hindu, household, residng at cherlam in thayannur village, hosdrug taluk p.o, kalichanadukkam, kasaragod district. 3 madhavi, aged 48 years, d/o. raman and wife of koran, hindu, household, residng at anapetty, thayyannur village, hosdrug taluk p.o, thayannur by advs. sri.s.v.balakrishna iyer sr. sri.p.b.krishnanthis appeal suits having come up for admission on 01.06.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:sathish ninan, j.============================== as no.647 of 2000 ========================== dated this the 1st day of june, 2023judgmentbetween the parties, there were two suits: one for partition and the other for injunction. a.s no.1048 of 1998 was filed against the partition decree and a.s no.647 of 2000, presently before this court, was originally filed before the district court against the decree in the injunction suit.2. the suit for injunction was filed by the appellant in a.s no.647 of 2000 claiming exclusive possession.3. pending the appeals, the parties settled the disputes in mediation and filed a compromise, based on which a.s no.1048 of 1998 was disposed of as perjudgment dated 22-03-2016.in the light thereof, nothing further survives in this appeal. the appeal suit is accordingly dismissed. sd/- sathish ninan, judge amk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AS NO. 647 OF 2000 AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS 60/1990 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG. AS 144/1998 OF DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD. APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF : V.T.NARAYANAN, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF RAMAN, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MALAM IN THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURUG TALUK P.O. THAYANNUR KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN & PRABHA R.MENON. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :
1 GOPALAN, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF RAMAN, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDNG AT MALAM IN THAYANNUR VILLAGE P.O, THAYANNUR, HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2 UNDACHI, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. RAMAN WIFE OF KUNHIKANNAN, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD, RESIDNG AT CHERLAM IN THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK P.O, KALICHANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3 MADHAVI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. RAMAN AND WIFE OF KORAN, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD, RESIDNG AT ANAPETTY, THAYYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK P.O, THAYANNUR BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SR. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
============================== AS No.647 of 2000 ========================== Dated this the 1st day of June, 2023

JUDGMENT

Between the parties, there were two suits: one for partition and the other for injunction. A.S No.1048 of 1998 was filed against the partition decree and A.S No.647 of 2000, presently before this Court, was originally filed before the District Court against the decree in the injunction suit.

2. The suit for injunction was filed by the appellant in A.S No.647 of 2000 claiming exclusive possession.

3. Pending the appeals, the parties settled the disputes in mediation and filed a compromise, based on which A.S No.1048 of 1998 was disposed of as per

judgment dated 22-03-2016.

In the light thereof, nothing further survives in this appeal. The appeal suit is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge amk

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties V.T.Narayanan vs Gopalan Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan