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.

Majeed vs Safiya

Majeed vs Safiya

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 17, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1388841

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
RSA/821/2018

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Majeed

Respondent

Safiya

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mrs. justice m.r.anitha tuesday, the 17th day of january 2023 / 27th pousha, 1944 against the judgment & decree dated 31.05.2018 in as 94/2012 of additional sub court, irinjalakuda against the judgment & decree dated 14.03.2012 in os 580/2010 of munsiff court, kodungallur appellant/appellant/plaintiff: majeed aged 67 years s/o. parayil saidu muhammed, p. vemballur village and post office, thrissur district-680671. g. sreekumar (chelur) k.d. sreevisakh respondents/respondents/defendants: 1 safiya aged 63 years w/o. ponakuzhi shoukathali and d/o. kattuparambil moidu, emmadu desom, koolimuttam village, 2 abdul kareem s/o. kattuparambil moidu, 3 sakeena d/o. mathilakathu veettil kunjumarakkar and w/o. kattuparambil abdul kareem, k.s.rajesh sri.m.shaju purushothaman this regular second appeal having come up for admission on 17.01.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentdated this the 17th day of january, 2023 the above regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in a.s. no.94/2012 on the files of addl. sub judge, irinjalakkude which arise out of judgment and decree in o.s. no. 580/2010 on the file of munsiff’s court, kodungallur.2. when the case taken up today, it is reported bythe learned counsel for the appellant that matter has been settled between the parties out of the court and hence, the appellant is not interested to prosecute the case. a memo to that effect has been filed. memo is recorded. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. sd/- m.r.anitha judge lu

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 31.05.2018 IN AS 94/2012 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 14.03.2012 IN OS 580/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: MAJEED AGED 67 YEARS S/O. PARAYIL SAIDU MUHAMMED, P. VEMBALLUR VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680671. G. SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) K.D. SREEVISAKH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1 SAFIYA AGED 63 YEARS W/O. PONAKUZHI SHOUKATHALI AND D/O. KATTUPARAMBIL MOIDU, EMMADU DESOM, KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE, 2 ABDUL KAREEM S/O. KATTUPARAMBIL MOIDU, 3 SAKEENA D/O. MATHILAKATHU VEETTIL KUNJUMARAKKAR AND W/O. KATTUPARAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM, K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2023 The above Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.94/2012 on the files of Addl. Sub Judge, Irinjalakkude which arise out of judgment and decree in O.S. No. 580/2010 on the file of Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur.

2. When the case taken up today, it is reported by

the learned counsel for the appellant that matter has been settled between the parties out of the court and hence, the appellant is not interested to prosecute the case. A memo to that effect has been filed. Memo is recorded. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- M.R.ANITHA JUDGE LU

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial