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.

Yuvaraj vs Ramachandran

Yuvaraj vs Ramachandran

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 28, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1636340

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/766/2018

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yuvaraj

Respondent

Ramachandran

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice n.anil kumar monday, the 28th day of june 2021 / 7th ashadha, 1943 rsa no. 766 of 2018 as 113/2015 of i additional sub court, ernakulam os no.557/2013 of i additional munsiff court, ernakulam appellant/s: 1 yuvaraj, aged 55 years, s/o. sivasankaran, nadama village,kanayannur taluk,ernakulam 2 rani @ poonkuyili, w/o. yuvaraj, aged 47 years, sri.philip t.varghese smt.achu subha abraham sri.thomas t.varghese respondent/s: ramachandran, aged 59 years, s/o. venkitapathy, balaji, t m c 29/302, manjelipadam eroor west, district - 682 306. t.b. thankappan t.t. harikumar ashish vidyadharan this regular second appeal having come up for admission on 28.06.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following: rsa 766/2018 ..2..judgmentthis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first additional sub court, ernakulam in as no. 113 of 2015 dated 04.04.2018, confirming the judgment and decree of the first additional munsiff court, ernakulam in os no. 557 of 2013 dated 10.04.2015. the suit was filed for both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.2. when this appeal came up for consideration, thelearned counsel for the appellants filed a memo stating that the appellants do not intend to proceed with the appeal as they have removed the gate erected on the western boundary of their property opening to plaint b schedule property as directed by the two courts below. recording the memo, this rsa stands dismissed as withdrawn. there would be no order as to costs.sd/- n.anil kumar judge bka/28.06.2021

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943 RSA NO. 766 OF 2018 AS 113/2015 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM OS NO.557/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: 1 YUVARAJ, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN, NADAMA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM 2 RANI @ POONKUYILI, W/O. YUVARAJ, AGED 47 YEARS, SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/S: RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. VENKITAPATHY, BALAJI, T M C 29/302, MANJELIPADAM EROOR WEST, DISTRICT - 682 306. T.B. THANKAPPAN T.T. HARIKUMAR ASHISH VIDYADHARAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RSA 766/2018 ..2..

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam in AS No. 113 of 2015 dated 04.04.2018, confirming the judgment and decree of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in OS No. 557 of 2013 dated 10.04.2015. The suit was filed for both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.

2. When this appeal came up for consideration, the

learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo stating that the appellants do not intend to proceed with the appeal as they have removed the gate erected on the western boundary of their property opening to plaint B schedule property as directed by the two courts below. Recording the memo, this RSA stands dismissed as withdrawn. There would be no order as to costs.

Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE Bka/28.06.2021

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial