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.

Lalitha Devi vs P.Subhadra Devi

Lalitha Devi vs P.Subhadra Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Dec 17, 2019
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1920439

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/557/2007

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalitha Devi

Respondent

P.Subhadra Devi

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan tuesday, the 17th day of december 2019 / 26th agrahayana, 1941 rsa.no.557 of 2007 against the judgment and decree dated 19-12-2006 in as 110/2004 of v additional district court, ernakulam against the judgment and decree dated 28-02-2004 in os 1299/1995 of ii additional munsiff court, ernakulam appellants/appellants/defendants: 1 lalitha devi, aged 71, d/o lakshmikkutty amma, mangayil chowppillil, poonithura, 2 unni, son of mangayil radhakrishna panicker, chowppillil, poonithura,, by adv. sri.k.c.charles respondents/respondents/plaintiffs:1 p.subhadra devi, aged 81, wife of late raman menon, 2 p.kesava kumar, aged 53, son of late raman menon, 3 kochunni, aged 51, son of late raman menon, 4 p.induchoodan, aged 47, son of late raman menon, palliyil madom, poonithura, poonithura village, 5 p.chandrachoodan, aged 47, son of late raman menon, palliyil madom, poonithura, rsa.no.557 of 2007 2 6 p.krishna kumar, aged 42, son of late raman menon, palliyil madom, poonithura, poonithura village, kanayannur taluk. r1 to r6 by advs. sri.t.k.radhakrishnan smt.k.l.sreedevi this regular second appeal having been finally heard on 17.12.2019, the court on the same day delivered the following: rsa.no.557 of 2007 3judgmentthe appellants and the counsel remained absent. there was no representation. the appeal is of the year 2007. last time also appellants and counsel remained absent. since it is a matter relating to the year 2007, based on a litigation started in the year 1995, i am of the view that it is not at all fit and proper to grant any further time. hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.sd/- p.somarajan judge msp //true copy// p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 RSA.No.557 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19-12-2006 IN AS 110/2004 OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28-02-2004 IN OS 1299/1995 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1 LALITHA DEVI, AGED 71, D/O LAKSHMIKKUTTY AMMA, MANGAYIL CHOWPPILLIL, POONITHURA, 2 UNNI, SON OF MANGAYIL RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER, CHOWPPILLIL, POONITHURA,, BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

1 P.SUBHADRA DEVI, AGED 81, WIFE OF LATE RAMAN MENON, 2 P.KESAVA KUMAR, AGED 53, SON OF LATE RAMAN MENON, 3 KOCHUNNI, AGED 51, SON OF LATE RAMAN MENON, 4 P.INDUCHOODAN, AGED 47, SON OF LATE RAMAN MENON, PALLIYIL MADOM, POONITHURA, POONITHURA VILLAGE, 5 P.CHANDRACHOODAN, AGED 47, SON OF LATE RAMAN MENON, PALLIYIL MADOM, POONITHURA, RSA.No.557 OF 2007 2 6 P.KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 42, SON OF LATE RAMAN MENON, PALLIYIL MADOM, POONITHURA, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. R1 to R6 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.K.L.SREEDEVI THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RSA.No.557 OF 2007 3

JUDGMENT

The appellants and the counsel remained absent. There was no representation. The appeal is of the year 2007. Last time also appellants and counsel remained absent. Since it is a matter relating to the year 2007, based on a litigation started in the year 1995, I am of the view that it is not at all fit and proper to grant any further time. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial