Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MURARI S. @ L.SAIJU versus V.V.SYAM, S/O.VELAYUDHAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MURARI S. @ L.SAIJU v. V.V.SYAM, S/O.VELAYUDHAN - CRP No. 762 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 13809 (23 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 762 of 2006()

1. MURARI S. @ L.SAIJU,
... Petitioner

2. N.MANILAL, VAZHAYIL VEEDU,

3. N.ANILKUMAR, NADAKAVIL VEEDU,

4. K.VASANTHAKUMAR,

5. K.SIVAPRASAD, MULLAKKARA VEEDU,

6. SULABHA, MANGUZHI VADAKKATHIL,

7. SHINU BABU S., VAZHAYIL VEEDU,

8. RAJEESH R.C., THOPPIL VEEDU,

9. SHAJI, ARADHANA,

10. RAJIDHARMAN C.,

11. ANILKUMAR G., G.S.BHAVAN,

Vs

1. V.V.SYAM, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
... Respondent

2. SATHYADAS, S/O.DAMODHARAN,

3. R.UDAYAKUMAR, UDAYA,

4. MOHANDAS, S/O.SIVADASAN,

5. HARI R., LAKSHMI MANDIRAM,

6. SAJEEV V., KRISHNA VILASAM,

7. JOSHI, J.J.BHAVAN,

8. RAJAN N., THEKKEVILAYIL,

9. SOORAJ S., VELIYIL VEEDU,

10. MADHAVAN, KUNNATHUKAVU TEMPLE,

11. AJAYAGHOSH, BUNGLOWIL,

12. DILEEP T., VELIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL,

13. GIREESH KUMAR K.,

14. AJITH, VANCHIYIL,

15. BAIJU P.R., PARNASALA,

16. RAVI, KASIVAYALIL THODU,

For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :23/07/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

C.R.P.No. 762 OF 2006 B

Dated this the 23rd July, 2007.

O R D E R

This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the I Additional District Judge, Kollam in O.S.7/2002. The suit relates to a temple and a draft scheme has been framed and the point of difference between the parties is only regarding the name to be given to the temple. The revision petitioners would contend that the name of the temple should be Sree Saravana Temple, Eravipuram whereas the other side would contend that it must be Vanchiyil Sree Saravana Temple or Vanchikovil Sree Saravana Temple. The objection by the revision petitioners is that the attempt is made to give the family name of the persons and it should not be permitted. Now the question to be resolved is the name to be given to the temple by permitting the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Large number of photo copies of document far and against have been produced before this Court. This Court, sitting in the revisional jurisdictiona cannot decide the question because it requires evidence. I am informed that there are cassettes and other documents which also has to be looked into. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside to the extent that it relates C.R.P. 762/06 2 to the name of the temple and the court below is directed to permit both parties to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter decide on the basis of the evidence and on satisfaction, what is the name to be given to the temple. For that purpose the case is remitted back to the court below and the court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from today. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 18.8.2007. C.R.P is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.