Ramakrishnan vs Khadeeja

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 09, 2022

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445255

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/1445255
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Feb 09, 2022
Case Number: FAO/17/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramakrishnan

Respondent

Khadeeja

Excerpt

.....taluk, palakkad district, pin -679 505. this first appeal from orders having come up for admission on 09.02.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following: fao no.17 of 2022 2judgmentaggrieved by the order of attachment at the trial stageunder order 38 cpc, the defendants came up on two grounds, firstly that there is no fair chance of decreeing the suit since it is pertaining to a contingent contract, secondly that one of the items of property is sufficient to meet the requirement of a decree that may be passed in the suit. regarding the first ground, what has to be satisfied is the existence of a debatable case, for which a detailed enquiryat this stage is not required. only a prima facie satisfaction of existence of a debatable case is required.regarding the second ground, admittedly no valuation certificate was produced regarding the properties under attachment. in the event of production of valuationcertificate, if it is found that one of the properties is sufficient to meet the requirement, the appellant will get a chance to agitate the same at any proper stage. hence, there is no ground to admit the appeal. the appeal isfao no.17 of 2022 3 dismissed in limine without prejudice to the right of appellants to produce the valuation certificate from acompetent authority before the trial court. sd/- p.somarajan judge dmr/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943 FAO NO. 17 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2021 IN IA No.1277/2021 IN OS No.139/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1 RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/o ETTAN, PARLI II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN 678612 2 RAMESH K.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/o RAMAKRISHNAN, PARLI II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-678612 BY ADV R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONES/PLAINTIFFS: 1 KHADEEJA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/o LATE MOIDEENKUTTY, POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679505 2 NOORJAHAN K., AGED 39 YEARS, D/o LATE MOIDEENKUTTY,
RESIDING AT PURPLE-4, JAYARAJ SPECTRUM FLAT, VADAKKODE POST, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 021.

3 SHOWKKATHALI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/o LATE MOIDEENKUTTY, POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -679 505. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FAO No.17 of 2022 2

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order of attachment at the trial stage

under Order 38 CPC, the defendants came up on two grounds, firstly that there is no fair chance of decreeing the suit since it is pertaining to a contingent contract, secondly that one of the items of property is sufficient to meet the requirement of a decree that may be passed in the suit. Regarding the first ground, what has to be satisfied is the existence of a debatable case, for which a detailed enquiry

at this stage is not required. Only a prima facie satisfaction of existence of a debatable case is required.

Regarding       the       second      ground,       admittedly       no   valuation
certificate         was    produced     regarding       the   properties      under
attachment.         In    the      event       of   production       of   valuation

certificate, if it is found that one of the properties is sufficient to meet the requirement, the appellant will get a chance to agitate the same at any proper stage. Hence, there is no ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is

FAO No.17 of 2022                        3
dismissed      in        limine   without      prejudice    to    the   right    of
appellants          to   produce   the       valuation   certificate      from    a

competent authority before the trial court. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Ramakrishnan vs Khadeeja Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan