Lalitha Devi vs P.Subhadra Devi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1920439
CourtKerala Orders High Court
Decided OnDec-17-2019
Case NumberRSA/557/2007
JudgeHonourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
AppellantLalitha Devi
RespondentP.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
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