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.

Hussain vs Saidu

Hussain vs SAIDU

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Sep 25, 2019
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1853011

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/359/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hussain

Respondent

SAIDU

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice a.m.babu wednesday, the 25th day of september 2019 / 3rd aswina, 1941 rsa.no.359 of 2019 as 58/2016 of sub court, chavakkad os 1152/2011 of munsiff court,chavakkad appellant/appellant/plaintiff hussain aged 67 years s/o.ummer, puthenveetil house, (puthuveetil kadappuram.p.o., chavakkad taluk, thrissur district-680514.by adv. sri.p.ramachandran respondents/respondents/defendants 1 saidu aged 57 years 2 sulaiman 3 asharaf 4 mariyamma w/o.saidu, puthenveetil house(puthuveetil 5 sulekha aged 44 years w/o.sulaiman, puthenveetil house(puthuveetil 6 zeenath, aged 42 years w/o asharaf, , puthenveetil house(puthuveetil 7 shabid, aged 26 years s/o saidu,puthenveetil house(puthuveetil house), 8 sulphy, aged 22 years s/o.sulaiman, puthenveetil house(puthuveetil 9 sumiya, aged 16 years d/o sulaiman,rep. by father sulaiman,puthenveetil house(puthuveetil house),10 abu thahir, aged 12 years s/o sulaiman,rep.by father sulaiman, puthenveetil house(puthuveetil house), 11 hashik, aged 11 years s/o asharf, rep by father asharaf, puthenveetil house(puthuveetil house), kadappuram amsom, desom, kadappuram.p.o., chavakkad taluk-680514. r1-11 by adv. sri.m.p.ashok kumar r1-11 by adv. sri.p.c.gopinath r1-11 by adv. smt.bindu sreedhar r1-11 by adv. shri.asif n this regular second appeal having been finally heard on 25.09.2019, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentthe appeal and c.m.appln 2/2019 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal are not pressed. so submits the learned counsel for the appellant. a memo to that effect has been filed on 20.9.2019. the application for condoning the delay is therefore dismissed as not pressed. the appeal stands dismissed as time barred. sd/- a.m.babu judge mrcs/25.9.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941 RSA.No.359 OF 2019 AS 58/2016 OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD OS 1152/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF HUSSAIN AGED 67 YEARS S/O.UMMER, PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE, (PUTHUVEETIL KADAPPURAM.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680514.

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 SAIDU AGED 57 YEARS 2 SULAIMAN 3 ASHARAF 4 MARIYAMMA W/O.SAIDU, PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL 5 SULEKHA AGED 44 YEARS W/O.SULAIMAN, PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL 6 ZEENATH, AGED 42 YEARS W/O ASHARAF, , PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL 7 SHABID, AGED 26 YEARS S/O SAIDU,PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE), 8 SULPHY, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SULAIMAN, PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL 9 SUMIYA, AGED 16 YEARS D/O SULAIMAN,REP. BY FATHER SULAIMAN,PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE),

10 ABU THAHIR, AGED 12 YEARS S/O SULAIMAN,REP.BY FATHER SULAIMAN, PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE), 11 HASHIK, AGED 11 YEARS S/O ASHARF, REP BY FATHER ASHARAF, PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE(PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE), KADAPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, KADAPPURAM.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK-680514. R1-11 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR R1-11 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.GOPINATH R1-11 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR R1-11 BY ADV. SHRI.ASIF N THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appeal and C.M.Appln 2/2019 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal are not pressed. So submits the learned counsel for the appellant. A memo to that effect has been filed on 20.9.2019. The application for condoning the delay is therefore dismissed as not pressed. The appeal stands dismissed as time barred. Sd/- A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/25.9.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial