Priya vs Sobhana

PRIYA vs Sobhana

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1351701

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/1351701
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque,Honourable Mrs. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
Decided On: Jan 31, 2023
Case Number: FAO/216/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

PRIYA

Respondent

Sobhana

Excerpt

.....sri.lindons c.davis smt. dhanya.e.u respondent/respondent/plaintiff sobhana, aged 40 years, w/o.sadanandan kandath(h), ollukkara, thrissur by adv sri.n.m.madhu admission on 31.01.2023, along with fao.227/2018, the & fao no. 227 of 2018 against order dated 20.10.2017 in ea 1629/2016 in ep no.22/2014 in os 887/2012 of i additional sub court, thrissur appellant/petitioner/judgment-debtorpriya, aged 40 years w/o balasubrahmanyam, ambalaparambil veedu, peingavu village desom,thrissur taluk. lindons c.davis smt.e.u.dhanya respondent/respondent/decree holder sobana, aged 40 years w/o kandath sadanandan, ollukkara village desom,thrissur taluk. sri.n.m.madhu smt.c.s.rajani admission on 31.01.2023, along with fao.216/2017, the a.muhamed mustaque & shoba annamma eapen, jj. ------------------------------------------------- f.a.o. 216 of 2017 & f.a.o. 227 of 2018 ------------------------- dated : 31st january, 2023judgmenta.muhamed mustaque, j.the appeals were filed by a judgment-debtor aggrieved by an application for setting aside the sale. when this matter was taken up before this court on 25.7.2022, the following order was passed.“today, when these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in terms of an out of court settlement arrived at between the parties, the appellant paid a sum of rs.5,00,000/-, out of the agreed amount of rs.16,00,000/-. the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if some more time is granted, the appellant shall pay the balance amount. the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the time limit as per the terms of the out of court settlement already expired on 26.3.2021. he seeks time to get instructions as to whether the respondent is prepared to grant some more time to the appellant to pay off the balance amount.”2. agreement between the parties had already beenarrived at and no settlement has been worked out. but still we persuaded the counsel for.....

Full Judgment

& FAO NO. 216 OF 2017 AGAINST ORDER DATED 4.3.2017 IN I.A.NO.4535/2016 & I.A.NO.4532/2016 IN OS 887/2012 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT PRIYA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BALASUBRAHMANIYAN, AMBALAPARAMBIL CHERUTHUDI(H). PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT. DHANYA.E.U RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF SOBHANA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SADANANDAN KANDATH(H), OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR BY ADV SRI.N.M.MADHU ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023, ALONG WITH FAO.227/2018, THE & FAO NO. 227 OF 2018 AGAINST ORDER DATED 20.10.2017 IN EA 1629/2016 IN EP NO.22/2014 IN OS 887/2012 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT-DEBTOR
PRIYA, AGED 40 YEARS W/O BALASUBRAHMANYAM, AMBALAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PEINGAVU VILLAGE DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER SOBANA, AGED 40 YEARS W/O KANDATH SADANANDAN, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023, ALONG WITH FAO.216/2017, THE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- F.A.O. 216 of 2017 & F.A.O. 227 of 2018 ------------------------- Dated : 31st January, 2023

JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The appeals were filed by a judgment-debtor aggrieved by an application for setting aside the sale. When this matter was taken up before this Court on 25.7.2022, the following order was passed.

“Today, when these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in terms of an out of court settlement arrived at between the parties, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, out of the agreed amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if some more time is granted, the appellant shall pay the balance amount. The learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the time limit as per the terms of the out of court settlement already expired on 26.3.2021. He seeks time to get instructions as to whether the respondent is prepared to grant some more time to the appellant to pay off the balance amount.”

2. Agreement between the parties had already been

arrived at and no settlement has been worked out. But still we persuaded the counsel for the decree holder (auction purchaser) to extend the time, and accordingly agreed to extend the time by one month from today. If the appellant/judgment debtor clears the entire amount within one month, the sale would stand set aside. Appeals are disposed of, on the basis of the agreement between the parties as above. A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, Mrcs

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties PRIYA vs Sobhana Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque,Honourable Mrs. Jus...