Veerankutty vs Vasavan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1470872

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/1470872
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: May 31, 2022
Case Number: FAO (RO)/202/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Veerankutty

Respondent

Vasavan

Excerpt

.....reliefs. the remand orderwas passed in the following lines : “in the result, the appeal is allowed. thejudgment and decree in o.s 169/2010 on the fileof the sub court, palakkad are set aside. the suit is remanded back to the court below for fresh trial to enable the appellant/plaintiff to take steps for measurement of the plaint schedule property as indicated above and to seek proper relief known fao(ro) no.202 of 2016 3to law. the appellant/plaintiff shall take all necessary steps in that regard. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. since the suit is being remanded for fresh trial to the court below, the entire court fee remitted by the appellant/plaintiff would be refunded. both parties are directed to appear before the court below on 20-08-2016. office shall transmit the records to the court below forthwith.”2. it is not made clear by the lower court regarding thenon-incorporation of any particular relief in the plaint. admittedly, it is a suit for injunction and as such, there is no scope for measuring out the property or to locate the property or to fix the boundary. going by the facts and circumstances involved in the case, i am of the view that such an order of remand was passed by the trial court for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to incorporate a relief of recovery of possession and declaration of title as the case may be, so as to advance justice, instead of fao(ro) no.202 of 2016 4 instituting another suit for declaration and recovery. hence, theorder of remand deserves no interference. the appeal isdismissed. no costs. the parties shall appear before the trial court on 15-06-2022, so as to proceed further in the matter sd/- p. somarajan, judge amk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944 FAO (RO) NO. 202 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-7-2016 IN AS 19/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. OS 169/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT : VEERANKUTTY, S/O. KATTOYU ISMAIL, AGED 53 YEARS, NOCHUR, KUTHANOOR AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF : VASAVAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYARAGHVA MENON, PARAKKALCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 507. BY ADVS. SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS SRI.P.R.VENKATESH THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FAO(RO) No.202 of 2016 2
P.SOMARAJAN, J.
------------------------------------------------ FAO(RO) No.202 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2022.

JUDGMENT

In a suit for injunction, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to show the identity of the boundary in dispute and also found that the entire property is lying inside the boundary structures around the property of the defendant. In appeal, it was set aside for the purpose of measuring out the property based on the old survey records and also for incorporating substantial relief of recovery

of possession and other connected reliefs. The remand order

was passed in the following lines : “In the result, the appeal is allowed. The

judgment and decree in O.S 169/2010 on the file

of the Sub Court, Palakkad are set aside. The suit is remanded back to the court below for fresh trial to enable the appellant/plaintiff to take steps for measurement of the plaint schedule property as indicated above and to seek proper relief known FAO(RO) No.202 of 2016 3

to law. The appellant/plaintiff shall take all necessary steps in that regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Since the suit is being remanded for fresh trial to the court below, the entire court fee remitted by the appellant/plaintiff would be refunded. Both parties are directed to appear before the court below on 20-08-2016. Office shall transmit the records to the court below forthwith.”

2. It is not made clear by the lower court regarding the

non-incorporation of any particular relief in the plaint. Admittedly, it is a suit for injunction and as such, there is no scope for measuring out the property or to locate the property or to fix the boundary. Going by the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that such an order of remand was passed by the trial court for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to incorporate a relief of recovery of possession and declaration of title as the case may be, so as to advance justice, instead of FAO(RO) No.202 of 2016 4 instituting another suit for declaration and recovery. Hence, the

order of remand deserves no interference. The appeal is

dismissed. No costs. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 15-06-2022, so as to proceed further in the matter Sd/- P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE amk

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