Disposed

Arjunan Swamy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC18 Aug 2010WP(C)/8792/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a family property dispute writ petition where parties reached a compromise. The court directed the petitioner to convey specific property items to his wife and children, the fourth respondent to release her rights to the petitioner, and fixed timelines for these actions along with fee payments and withdrawal of pending suits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to convey Item Nos.1 and 5 to wife and children within 2 months; 4th respondent directed to release her right to petitioner within 2 months; parties to pay mediator fees and withdr

Arjunan Swamy Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police — Partition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 8792 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------PETITIONER(S): ----------------------

¶5

ARJUNAN SWAMY, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUMBELI KUNNU, KATTITTA, PANAYAM, EROOR POST.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶8

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

P.THANKAMMA, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURUMBELIKUNNU, PANAYAM, EROOR POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

ANIL KUMAR, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURUMBELIKUNNU, PANAYAM, EROOR POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

GOPALAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA VILASOM KATTITTA, PANAYAM, EROOR POST.

¶14

LATHIKA KUMARI, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA VILASOM KATTITTA, PANAYAM, EROOR POST.

¶15

OMANAKUTTAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURUMBELIKUNNU, PANAYAM, EROOR POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SMITHA SUKUMARAN. ADV. SRI.ALEX VARGHESE FOR R4-8

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.8792 OF 2010:

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 4.2.2008.

¶21

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 7.11.1988.

¶22

EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9.8.1996.

¶23

EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 4.6.09.

¶24

EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 4.6.09.

¶25

EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.3.2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P7.TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.3.2010 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 26.4.2010.

¶28

EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF the SKETCH PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXT.R5A. TRUE COPY OF PATTA IN RESPECT OF 44 CENTS IN THE NAME OF PETIITOENR AND 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.R5B. TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16.3.2010.

¶32

K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.8792 of 2010-Y

¶35

Dated, this the 18^th day of August, 2010

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶38

In this case upon the matter being referred for mediation by this Court, the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶39

We take on record Ext.P8 sketch produced under I.A.No.11515 of 2010.

¶40

Learned counsel for the party respondents prays that in terms of the compromise, Item Nos.1 and 5 may be conveyed to the wife and children of the petitioner within a time limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will comply with the terms of the compromise and convey the property in Item Nos.1 and 5 in favour of his wife and children at the earliest. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioner will comply with the condition in the compromise by conveying Item Nos.1 and 5 to his wife and children, within a period of 2 months from today.

¶41

WPC No.8792 of 2010 -2-

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of compromise 44 cents of joint property in the name of the petitioner and 4^th respondent is to be given to the petitioner exclusively and that the 4^th respondent agrees to release her right over the property Ext.R5 to the petitioner. He prays that the 4^th respondent may comply with clause 2 of the report within a time limit. We direct that the 4^th respondent shall comply with the condition in clause 2 of the report of the Mediator and release her right in the property in question to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

¶43

The petitioner will pay Rs.5,000/- and respondents 4 to 8 will pay another amount of Rs.5,000/- to the mediator within a period of one month from today and will produce memo also.

¶44

In case the petitioner complains of any threat from respondents 4 to 8 to the life of the petitioner before respondents 2 and 3, they will look into the same and if the threat is found to be genuine, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to grant adequate protection to the life of the

¶45

WPC No.8792 of 2010 -3-

¶46

petitioner.

¶47

We notice that in clause 4 of the report parties

¶48

have agreed to withdraw all the pending cases before all the courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submit that they will abide by the terms of the compromise.

¶49

The writ petition is dispose of as above.

¶50

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶51

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE.

¶52

Arjunan Swamy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjunan Swamy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.P.N.Premachandran Vs State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala & Others

K.v.Anthichan, Secretary-in-Charge Arthu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Arthunkal

P.Saji and Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Gireesha Kumar Vs Director General of Police

Elizabeth Joy Vs Sub Inspector &Ors