Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS versus H.WILLIAMS, ATTINGAL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS v. H.WILLIAMS, ATTINGAL HOUSE - MACA No. 1072 of 2004 [2007] RD-KL 4774 (6 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 1072 of 2004()

1. KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. H.WILLIAMS, ATTINGAL HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. ANANTHAN, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

4. USHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE KAMALAKSHAN,

5. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAGHAVAN

For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.M.PAREED PILLAY(RETD.CHIEF JUSTICE)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR (RETD.JUDGE)

Dated :06/03/2007

O R D E R

M.M.PAREED PILLAY (RETD. CHIEF JUSTICE) &

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR (RETD.JUDGE)

M.A.C.A.No.1072 OF 2004

Dated this the 6th day of March, 2007

A W A R D Heard counsel appearing for both sides. Appellant and 3rd respondent present. The parties have settled the dispute on condition that the 3rd respondent will pay an additional amount of Rs.22,000/- (Rs. Twenty two thousand only) to the appellant, within two months from today, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till payment. The appeal is settled as above. M.M.PAREED PILLAY (RETD. CHIEF JUSTICE) M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

(RETD.JUDGE)

ps

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+WP(C) No. 3885 of 2007(K) #1. KUNJAMMA, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

$1. ELAMMA, W/O. VARGHESE,
... Respondent

2. YACOB,

3. ELDHO P.Y., S/O. YACOB,

4. VARGHESE P.Y.,S/O.YACOB,

5. RAJU P.Y., S/O. YACOB,

6. ELDOSE, S/O. LATE ISSAC,

7. JOSEPH, S/O. LATE ISSAC,

8. JOY, S/O. VARKEY,

! For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.DINESH

For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR

*Coram

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

% Dated :05/03/2007

: O R D E R

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.3885 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 5th day of March 2007



JUDGMENT

Adv. Sri.P.N. Ramakrishnan Nair appears for respondents 1 to 5 and Adv. Sri. Abraham appears for respondents 6 and 7. 8th respondent is reported to be out of India but it is submitted that he is the assignee of the original first defendant/Issac who is the husband of the petitioner and father of respondents 6 and 7. Yet 8th respondent was not contesting either in the first appeal or in the final decree proceedings. Hence, notice to 8th respondent is dispensed with.

2. This writ petition is filed by the additional 5th defendant in O.S.82/2000 pending on the file of Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. The prayers in the writ petition are to quash the order issuing commission to effect division of the properties by metes and bounds in the final decree proceedings vide order on I.A.3769/04 or in the alternative to give effect to the said order after disposal of the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that final arguments in Ext.P3 were heard by the court below and that Ext.P3 is taken for orders. Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 contends that there is no meaning in awaiting for final orders W.P.(C)NO.3885 OF 2007 2 on Ext.P3 application and the said order attaining finality and that respondents 1 to 5 are prepared to take the risk if at all Ext.P3 is finally allowed and shares will have to be reallotted by issuing commission afresh consequent on orders passed on Ext.P3. He further submits that no injury at all is to be caused to the petitioner even in case the commission goes and inspects the property and assesses the details so as to enable the court to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree as it now stands. It is also seen from Ext.R4 order of this court that this court had on an earlier occasion directed the Sub Court, North Paravur to issue sufficient directions to the Commissioner to expedite the work and submit report and to dispose of the final decree application thereafter considering the objections raised and to dispose of the final decree application as expeditiously as possible.

3. In the circumstances, the request of the petitioner to withhold execution of commission order till Ext.P3 is disposed of finally is not tenable. This writ petition in the circumstances is dismissed.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE

jes


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.