Abdul Salam vs Dolfus

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 21, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1389845

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/1389845
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran
Decided On: Jun 21, 2023
Case Number: SA/679/2002

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Salam

Respondent

Dolfus

Excerpt

.....and decree dated 08.04.1994, whereby the plaintiff was allowed to remove the remaining articles kept in the plaint schedule property. the defendants were directed to pay rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff as damages. if the amount is paid within three months from the dateof the decree, the defendants can occupy the building. challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed a.s.no.133 of 1994 before the district court, kollam, seeking restoration of the possession of the plaint schedule shop room, after evicting the 2nd defendant who took forcible possession of the plaint schedule building. the said appeal was allowed by thejudgment dated 28.01.2002. aggrieved by the said judgment, theappellant is before this court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908.2. on 07.11.2002, when this appeal came up for admission, this court issued notice on the substantial question of law formulated in the memorandum of second appeal.3. service of notice is not complete on additional respondents 5 to 8 sought to be impleaded.4. today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not want to prosecute this appeal further and therefore, the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/- anil k. narendran, judge av/22/6

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1945 SA NO. 679 OF 2002 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2002 IN A.S.NO.133 OF 1994 OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM AND AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.1994 IN O.S.NO.156 OF 1991 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, SASTHAMCOTTA APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2/2ND DEFENDANT: ABDUL SALAM, CHURUVILA VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE,KUNNATHUR TALUK. BY ADV SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS/ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 & 1ST RESPONDENT/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF PLAINTIFF & THE 1ST DEFENDANT:
1 DOLFUS, S/O.M.G.THOMAS, KOCHU MUNDAPPALLI VEEDU, MOOVATTUPUZHA,, KANATHAN KUNNAM MURI, PEDINJARE KALLADA VILLAGE,, KUNNATHOOR TALUK. 2 REETHAKUTTY VATTATHIL HOUSE, VATTAYAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3 JOSEPH, KOCHU MUNDAPPALLIL VEEDU KANATHARKUNNAM MURI, VATTAYAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4 ABDUL KHADAR KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU CHARUVILA VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP SR.(EXPIRED)
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the additional 2nd defendant in O.S.No.156

of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Sasthamcotta, which was one filed by the original plaintiff, the deceased father of respondents 1 to 3 herein, for eviction and injunction. The said suit was decreed in part by the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1994, whereby the plaintiff was allowed to remove the remaining articles kept in the plaint schedule property. The defendants were directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff as damages. If the amount is paid within three months from the date

of the decree, the defendants can occupy the building. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.133 of 1994 before the District Court, Kollam, seeking restoration of the possession of the plaint schedule shop room, after evicting the 2nd defendant who took forcible possession of the plaint schedule building. The said appeal was allowed by the

judgment dated 28.01.2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the

appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. On 07.11.2002, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court issued notice on the substantial question of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal.

3. Service of notice is not complete on additional respondents 5 to 8 sought to be impleaded.

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

the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not want to prosecute this appeal further and therefore, the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/22/6

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Abdul Salam vs Dolfus Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran