Dismissed

K.T.Baby v. Annamma Abraham

Kerala HC24 Sept 2010RSA/82/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two regular second appeals arising from concurrent decisions in property suits between sister parties. It granted the appellant a six-month grace period to surrender vacant possession of a specific building upon filing a written undertaking as an affidavit before the trial court, with execution proceedings stayed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted six months grace to vacate the building on filing a written undertaking as affidavit, conditional on stay of execution proceedings.

K.T.Baby Vs Annamma Abraham — Partition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932

¶5

RSA.No. 82 of 2008() -------------------{IN A.S.No.65/2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IN O.S.No.301/2000 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM}

¶6

APPELLANT (S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶7

¶8

K.T.BABY, S/O.THOMAS, VATTOMTHOTTICKAL, THAZHATHUKAROTTU, KIDANGOOR KARA,AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDENT.

¶11

¶12

ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O.ABRAHAM, KADUTHOTTIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA KARA, KAIPUZHA VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM.

¶13

*** DIED**

¶14

*** ADDITIONAL R2 TO R4**

¶15

ABRAHAM, KADUTHODIL HOUSE, KADUTHODIL HOUSE,

¶16

KAIPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

SOYAL K. ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, KADUTHODIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA KARA,

¶18

KAIPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶19

JOSHIL ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, KADUTHODIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA KARA,

¶20

KAIPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶21

IMPLEADED AS LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN I.A.401/08 DATED 6.2.09.

¶22

R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH R.S.A.NO.96/08 ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

---------------------------------------

¶26

R.S.A.No.82 & 96 of 2008

¶27

--------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Concurrent decision rendered by the courts below in two suits jointly tried, one instituted by the appellant, and the other by the common 1^st respondent in these appeals, by which the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, and that of the 1^st respondent was decreed allowing recovery of possession of the building from the appellant with other reliefs for fixation of boundary, mandatory injunction etc., are challenged in these two appeals.

¶30

When the appeals came up for consideration of their admissibility, the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to the limited scope of entertaining the second appeals, except on grounds involving substantial questions of law as covered by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, confined his submissions to seek a grace period to vacate from item No.2 building covered by O.S.No.264/00

¶31

R.S.A.No.82 & 96 of 2008

¶32

:: 2 ::

¶33

on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, instituted by the 1^st respondent, in which a decree was granted allowing recovery of the building from the appellant. A period of one year is requested for, to surrender vacant possession of the building.

¶34

Having regard to the facts involved and more particularly, that the 1^st respondent/plaintiff was the sister of the appellant, whose claims over the building was based on a sale deed executed by her father in 1996, and the litigation has been continuing for the last more than a decade, I find that the maximum period that can be extended by way of grace to surrender the building is six months and, that too, on an undertaking given by the appellant to vacate from the building within such period and hand over vacant possession thereof to the legal heirs of the deceased/plaintiff in O.S.No.264/00 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, who are additional respondents 3 to 5 in these appeals. The appellant shall furnish an

¶35

R.S.A.No.82 & 96 of 2008

¶36

:: 3 ::

¶37

undertaking in writing in the form of an affidavit before the trial court, within a period of two weeks from today, unconditionally agreeing to surrender vacant possession of item No.2 building within a period of six months from this date. If such undertaking is filed, as ordered above, the court below shall keep in abeyance the execution proceedings over the decree, which have already been commenced, by the decree holder for a period of six months. In case no undertaking is filed within the period fixed above, after the expiry of such period, the execution court shall be to execute the decree in accordance with law.

¶38

Appeals are dismissed, subject to the directions given above. Both sides are directed to suffer their costs.

¶39

Sd/(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE

¶40

sk/-

¶41

//true copy//

¶42

P.S. to Judge.

K.T.Baby v. Annamma Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Baby v. Annamma Abraham

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

Gopalan Vs Kunhayyappakutty

K.C.Varkey Vs Saramma George

Pocken Rameshan Vs Pocken Narayanan

Smt.R.Seethammal Vs Sub Group Officer

Thomas Mathew Vs K.M.Meerannan

Sivasankara Pillai Vs R.Muthuswamy