Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.J. SREELAL versus ALEYAMMA VARGHESE @ ELAMMA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.J. SREELAL v. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE @ ELAMMA - FAO No. 20 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 4024 (22 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO No. 20 of 2007()

1. T.J. SREELAL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE @ ELAMMA,
... Respondent

2. N. THANKAMMA,

3. T.J. SREELATHA,

4. T.J. SREELEKHA,

For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :22/02/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN,JJ.

F.A.O.No.20 of 2007

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

Sankaran,J.

The first defendant in O.S.No.108/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara, challenges the order in I.A.No.574/2006 by which the court below appointed a Receiver to manage the plaint schedule property, auditorium and the shop rooms therein. The plaintiff has 7/8 shares in the plaint schedule property, she having got assignment of the shares of the sharers other than the first defendant. The first defendant has 1/8 share in the property. The plaint schedule property consists of an auditorium and a shop building. It was contended that no proper accounts were being maintained by the first defendant and that the income was not properly accounted. The court below held that there is no evidence on record to show that the first defendant is properly maintaining the accounts with respect to the income and expenses of the plaint schedule property and the auditorium and the shop rooms. All the relevant facts were considered by the court below and it was F.A.O.NO.20/2007 held that it is just and necessary to appoint a Receiver to safeguard the interests of the plaintiff who is having 7/8 shares. No grounds are made out for interference. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order or proceedings. All the contentions put forward by the first defendant were taken note of and the court below was fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that it is just and necessary to appoint a Receiver. We are in agreement with the reasonings as well as the conclusions arrived at by the court below. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE)

ahg.


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.