Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.SYLAJA versus KRISHNAN CHETTIAR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.SYLAJA v. KRISHNAN CHETTIAR - CRP No. 3298 of 2001(B) [2007] RD-KL 1144 (16 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 3298 of 2001(B)

1. G.SYLAJA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KRISHNAN CHETTIAR
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN

For Respondent :SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :16/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

C.R.P.NO. 3298 OF 2001 Dated 16th January 2007

O R D E R

Seventh judgment debtor in O.S.254/1991 on the file of Additional Munsiff court, Nedumangad is challenging the order passed by executing court in E.A.276/2000 allowing the application filed by first respondent/decree holder to put up a boundary with the assistance of commissioner as shown in Ext.C1(a) plan appended to the decree. Case of petitioner is that she filed objection to the application filed by first respondent before executing court and she was only a formal party to the suit and no relief was sought for against her and she apprehends that while putting up boundary, a portion of her property would be annexed to the property of first respondent and therefore the order is to be set aside.

2. On hearing learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the executing court. Petitioner is one of the defendants 2 in the suit. In the suit, learned Munsiff fixed the boundary as shown by commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan. If case of petitioner is that by accepting the plan, a portion of her property will be taken by first respondent, petitioner should have preferred an appeal challenging the decree to that extent. Without challenging the decree, petitioner is not entitled to raise any objection. As the decree provides for putting up boundary in accordance with Ext.C1(a) plan first respondent is entitled to get the order granted by the executing court. There is no merit in the revision. Revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj. 3
=============================

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

ORDER

C.R.P.No.3298 OF 2001 16th January 2007
============================


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.