Jose Paul vs Paul

Jose Paul vs PAUL

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 20, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1675384

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/1675384
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Oct 20, 2021
Case Number: RP/676/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jose Paul

Respondent

PAUL

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan monday, the 25th day of october 2021 / 3rd karthika, 1943 rp no. 676 of 2021against the order/judgment dated 11/7/2018 in rsa 227/2006 of high court of kerala, ernakulam review petitioner/appellant: jose paul, s/o paul, payyampilli veettil, alapuramkara, elanji village, ernakulam district-686665. by advs. c.rajendran b.k.gopalakrishnan r.s.sreevidya respondent/1st respondent: paul, s/o paul, payyampilli veettil, alappuramkara, elanji village, piravom, ernakulam-686665. this review petition having come up for admission on 25.10.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following: rp no. 676 of 2021 2judgmentthe review petition is on the ground that the settlement deed involved in this case was not attested by two witnesses and there is failure on the part of this court to consider the said question. in ext.a4 settlement deed, prima facie it appears that it is attested by two witnesses. the question of animus testandi was not raised or disputed for adjudication. on the other hand, the suit is one for declaration that ext.a5 cancellation is valid and to set aside ext.a4 settlement deed. in fact, the question whether the attesting witnesses were possessing the required animus had never come up for consideration. it is an admitted case of execution of settlement deed, but sought to set aside the same based on the cancellation deed, ext.a5. in ext.a4 document, there are two attesting witnesses. the legal position was settled by this court in f.a.o(ro) no.7/2020 dated 16/09/2021 (given for reporting). as such, the review fails, dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge msp rp no. 676 of 2021 3 appendix of rp 676/2021 petitioners annexure annexure a1 original medical certificate dated 24/08/2021 issued by the chief ayurvedic physician arun's ayur clinic, thattamala, kollam.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1943 RP NO. 676 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11/7/2018 IN RSA 227/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: JOSE PAUL, S/O PAUL, PAYYAMPILLI VEETTIL, ALAPURAMKARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686665. BY ADVS. C.RAJENDRAN B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT: PAUL, S/O PAUL, PAYYAMPILLI VEETTIL, ALAPPURAMKARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686665. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 676 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT

The Review petition is on the ground that the settlement deed involved in this case was not attested by two witnesses and there is failure on the part of this court to consider the said question. In Ext.A4 settlement deed, prima facie it appears that it is attested by two witnesses. The question of animus testandi was not raised or disputed for adjudication. On the other hand, the suit is one for declaration that Ext.A5 cancellation is valid and to set aside Ext.A4 settlement deed. In fact, the question whether the attesting witnesses were possessing the required animus had never come up for consideration. It is an admitted case of execution of settlement deed, but sought to set aside the same based on the cancellation deed, Ext.A5. In Ext.A4 document, there are two attesting witnesses. The legal position was settled by this Court in F.A.O(RO) No.7/2020 dated 16/09/2021 (given for reporting). As such, the review fails, dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp RP NO. 676 OF 2021 3 APPENDIX OF RP 676/2021 PETITIONERS ANNEXURE Annexure A1 ORIGINAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 24/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF AYURVEDIC PHYSICIAN ARUN'S AYUR CLINIC, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Jose Paul vs PAUL Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan