Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PATHUMMAL BEEVI SUBARATHU BEEVI versus JAFFARKHAN, S/O.SAYU RAWTHER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PATHUMMAL BEEVI SUBARATHU BEEVI v. JAFFARKHAN, S/O.SAYU RAWTHER - WP(C) No. 2502 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 1716 (22 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2502 of 2007(W)

1. PATHUMMAL BEEVI SUBARATHU BEEVI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JAFFARKHAN, S/O.SAYU RAWTHER,
... Respondent

2. NABEENA JAFFARKHAN,

3. BAHADOOR, S/O.JAFFERKHAN,

4. BAHARDOORSHA, S/O.JAFFERKHAN,

5. BEENA THANKAMMA, D/O.NABEENA,

6. RANITHA, D/O.NABEENA,

7. UDUMANKANNU RAWTHER BADARUDEEN,

8. MOHAMMED UMMAL, W/O.

9. A.AMEERKHAN,

10. A.SHAMSUDEEN,

11. A.UMMERKHAN,

12. K.JAMEELA BEEVI,

13. A.ANSAR BEEVI,

14. A.RASIYAMMA,

15. A.RAJAN,

16. RAHUMA BEEVI PATHUMMAI BEEVI,

17. PATHUMMAL BEEVI ARIFFA BEEVI,

18. PATHUMMAL BEEVI RASIYA BEEVI.

19. HANEEFA SALIM, PLAVILA VEEDU,

20. PATHUMMAL BEEVI AHURA BEEVI,

21. PATHUMMAL BEEVI, ATHAMMA BEEVI,

22. PATHUMMAL BEEVI, LABILLA BEEVI,

23. PATHUMMAL BEEVI SHAILA BEEVI,

24. PATHUMMAL BEEVI SOJA BEEVI,

25. SUHARA BEEVI, W/O.UMMERKHAN,

26. BAIJU, S/O.UMMER KHAN,

27. BIJU, S/O.UMMERKHAN,

28. KAUSI, W/O.SHAJAHAN,

29. PREETHI(MINOR) D/O.SHAJAHAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.D.JAYACHANDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :22/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C)NO.2502 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is third defendant in O.S.270/1965 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Respondents are plaintiffs and other defendants. A final decree was passed originally on 14.3.1985. Petitioner executed the final decree by filing E.P.79/1985 and got the property allotted to him, separated. The final decree was subsequently set aside as per order dated 4.11.1992. Thereafter, another Commission was appointed and on the basis of the report another final decree was passed. Petitioner filed I.A.327/06, an application to review the final decree contending that when the report originally submitted by Commissioner was not set aside, Court is not competent to appoint another Commission or accept the report and pass a final decree and therefore subsequent final decree is illegal and is to be reviewed. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

3. Though learned Counsel appearing for petitioner W.P.(c)2502/07 2 vehemently argued that learned Munisff did not properly consider the review application and therefore Ext.P6 order is to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 order. When a final decree is passed, after the original final decree was set aside ,if petitioner is aggrieved by the revised final decree, remedy of petitioner is to file an appeal as against the final decree. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. This petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to challenge the final decree in appeal.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)2502/07 3


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.