Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVEENDRANATHANUNNI, AGED 54 YEARS versus KAMALAKSHAN NAIR, S/O. VELLANDATH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAVEENDRANATHANUNNI, AGED 54 YEARS v. KAMALAKSHAN NAIR, S/O. VELLANDATH - WP(C) No. 492 of 2005(H) [2007] RD-KL 13701 (20 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 492 of 2005(H)

1. RAVEENDRANATHANUNNI, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. THANKAMANI, W/O. RAVEENDRANATHANUNNI,

Vs

1. KAMALAKSHAN NAIR, S/O. VELLANDATH
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

For Respondent :SMT.K.V.RESHMI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :20/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.492 OF 2005 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 20th JULY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The grievance which is projected by the judgment-debtors in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is that the execution court has turned down their request to have a portion of the property under attachment having a total extent of 15 cents retained by themselves so that there will be access to their residential properties situated on the back side. This Court, while admitting this Writ Petition, passed an interim order directing the petitioners to take all efforts to purchase the property which they want as pathway. The ground which is seriously urged by the petitioners against the proposal for settlement of proclamation was that the market value of the property is much more than what is shown in the draft sale proclamation. If that is a genuine ground, it is for the petitioners to find out a purchaser who will be prepared to purchase a portion of the property excluding the pathway for an amount equal to the decree- debt. I would have disposed of this Writ Petition issuing a direction in that regard. But Smt.K.V.Reshmi, counsel for the respondent submits that the decree-debt is around Rs.55,000/- and the petitioners have WP(C)N0.492/05 already paid Rs.30,000/-. If that be so, it is open to the petitioners to pay off the balance also.

2. Accordingly I dispose of the Writ Petition directing that the order of stay presently passed will continue for another four months from today. It is open to the petitioners to pay off the balance decree- debt in whichever manner they choose. At any rate, the order of stay will not continue beyond four months.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.492/05


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.