Partly allowed

S.Rajappan Nair v. Mathew Philip

Kerala HC12 Nov 2007CRP/73/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the impugned order on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 in a revision petition. It directed the lower court to reconsider these issues along with others in the suit after permitting all parties to adduce evidence, as the questions involve mixed questions of fact and law.

What did the court decide?

Order under challenge set aside; finding on issues 2 and 3 set aside; court below directed to consider issues after adducing evidence.

S.Rajappan Nair Vs Mathew Philip — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 CRP.No. 73 of 2007 -------------------------(ORDER DATED 17/08/06 IN OS.154/2004, I ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................................

¶4

REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------S. RAJAPPAN NAIR, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI AGED 73 YEARS, TC.4/1870, PANDIT COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶5

RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS 1,3 TO 7: -------------------------------------------------------------------------1. MATHEW PHILIP, S/O.P.K.PHILIP, AGED 56, RESIDING AT TC.NO.4/34-1, P.B.NO.829, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M/S. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, HSC UNIT, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. * 3. MRS. SARADA BHAI, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶6

PLOT NO.543, PANDIT COLONY HOUSING SCHEME, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( DIED) 4. DR. DIVAKARAN, AGED 54, PLOT NO.544, PANDIT COLONY HOUSING SCHEME, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MR. LISSAMMA LUKOSE, PLOT NO.545, PANDIT COLONY HOUSING SCHEME, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SREEKUMAR, S/O. SARADA BHAI, PLOT N.553, PANDIT COLONY HOUSING SCHEME, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

C.R.P NO. 73/2007 D

¶8

*7. V.S. HARIKRISHNAN, S/O. SARADA BHAI, PLOT NO.553, PANDIT COLONY HOUSING SCHEME, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

*** 3**^RD RESPONDENT DIED AND 7^TH RESPONDENT IS RECORDED AS HER LEGAL HEIR VIDE ORDER DT. 18/10/2007 (MEMO C.F 4208/07 DATED 13/08/2007)

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR -- R5 SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.SREEVALSAM GOPALAKRISHNAN --- R4 SRI.S.NARAYANAN NAIR POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB SRI.K.B.PRADEEP --- R1

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

M.N.KRISHNAN, J

¶13

=====================

¶14

C.R.P. No.73 OF 2007

¶15

=====================

¶16

Dated this the 12^th day of November 2007

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition is preferred against the order passed on Issue Nos.2 and 3 by the I Addl.Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum in O.S.No.154 of 2004. The court considered whether the said court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1253 of 1994 of the Sub court, Thiruvananthapuram? and whether the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.?

¶19

Heard counsel on both sides. It is fairly submitted that the question to be decided is a mixed question of fact and law and therefore evidence also may have relevance in deciding the above mentioned issues. Therefore, it is desirable that the order on the two issues is set aside and be considered along with the suit after permitting all parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.

¶20

Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the finding on issues 2 and 3 is set aside and the court below is directed to consider those issues along with other issues in the suit after permitting the parties to

¶21

CRP 73/2007 -:2:-

¶22

adduce evidence in support of their contentions.

¶23

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶24

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶25

Cdp/-

S.Rajappan Nair v. Mathew Philip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajappan Nair v. Mathew Philip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Power Grid Corporation of India Vs C.Madhavan

K.S.E.B. Vs Kunnel Sebastian

Secretary,K.S.E.B Vs Annamma John

Punnan Philip S. Vs Nithya Jacob

Manikandan Nair Vs Ratheesh

Prakasan & Another Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.