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.

Chandran vs Sethumadhavan

Chandran vs Sethumadhavan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 27, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1642280

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/655/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chandran

Respondent

Sethumadhavan

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice n.anil kumar wednesday, the 27th day of january 2021 / 7th magha, 1942 against the judgment in a.s.no.84/2000 dated 12-08-2005 on the files of the ii addl. district court, palakkad against the judgment in o.s.no.402/1997 dated 30-10-1999 on the files of munsiff court, chittur appellants/respondents/defendants:1 chandran aged 42 years,s/o.krishnan, kallankotti, chathamangalam, nemmara village,, 2 vasudevan, s/o.andi, aged 48 years ozhavappadam, chathamangalam, nemmara village,, 3 pazhanimala, s/o.ponnan, aged 61 years s/o.ponnan, kallankottil kunnil, nemmara village, 4 babu, aged 37 years son in law of 3rd defendant, residing at - do - 5 radhakrishnan, s/o.velayudhan, aged 36 years, kallankottil, nemmara village, 6 prabhakaran @ prabha s/o.radhakrishnan, aged 28 years, residing at -do-7 kumaran, s/o.kalyani, aged 41 years residing at -do- by advs. smt.a.s.suvitha sri.k.r.haran respondent/appellant/plaintiff: sethumadhavan, s/o.krishnan, aged 52 years, kallankottil,chatttamangalam, nemmara village, by adv. sri.vinod kumar.c this regular second appeal having been finally heard on 27.01.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentdated this the 27th day of january 2021 the learned counsel for the appellants filed a withdrawal memo before this court stating that the appeal is not pressed. recording the memo, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. there will be no order as to costs. pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. sd/- n.anil kumar judge dk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.84/2000 DATED 12-08-2005 ON THE FILES OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.402/1997 DATED 30-10-1999 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

1 CHANDRAN AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNAN, KALLANKOTTI, CHATHAMANGALAM, NEMMARA VILLAGE,, 2 VASUDEVAN, S/O.ANDI, AGED 48 YEARS OZHAVAPPADAM, CHATHAMANGALAM, NEMMARA VILLAGE,, 3 PAZHANIMALA, S/O.PONNAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.PONNAN, KALLANKOTTIL KUNNIL, NEMMARA VILLAGE, 4 BABU, AGED 37 YEARS SON IN LAW OF 3RD DEFENDANT, RESIDING AT - DO - 5 RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KALLANKOTTIL, NEMMARA VILLAGE, 6 PRABHAKARAN @ PRABHA S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-

7 KUMARAN, S/O.KALYANI, AGED 41 YEARS RESIDING AT -DO- BY ADVS. SMT.A.S.SUVITHA SRI.K.R.HARAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, KALLANKOTTIL,CHATTTAMANGALAM, NEMMARA VILLAGE, BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of January 2021 The learned counsel for the appellants filed a withdrawal memo before this Court stating that the appeal is not pressed. Recording the memo, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. There will be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE DK

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial