Disposed

Rajagopala Rao v. G.K.Vasudeva Rao

Kerala HC28 Jun 2011OP(C)/969/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil original petition, the petitioners challenged an order allowing a Commissioner's report in an execution petition related to a Lok Adalath award. The court recorded party submissions agreeing on land extent for a pathway and directed the suit property. The petition was disposed of without a substantive decision on the reliefs sought.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of. No specific order on relief sought regarding setting aside order or dismissal of execution application.

Rajagopala Rao Vs G.K.Vasudeva Rao — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

OP(C).No. 969 of 2011(O)

¶6

-----------------------OS.58/1995 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

RAJAGOPALA RAO, GOPALA VILASOM VEEDU, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

C.K.VASUDEVA RAO, LEKSHMI NIVAS, PANAMPATTA, PIDAVOOR MURI, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶14

ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R SRI.AJITH MURALI FOR R

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(C).No. 969 of 2011(O)

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶18

EXT.P1: COPY OF AWARD IN LOK ADALATH CASE NO.584/2008.

¶19

EXT.P2: COPY OF EP NO.90/2009 IN OS NO.58/1995 SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶20

EXT.P3: COPY OF OBJECTION TO EP NO.90/2009 IN OS NO.58/1995 SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶21

EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER IN EP NO.90/2009 IN OS NO.58/1995 SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF EA NO.16 OF 2011 IN EP NO.90/2009 IN OS NO.58/1995 SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶23

EXT.P6: COPY OF EA NO.28 OF 2011 IN EP NO.90/2009 IN OS NO.58/1995 SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶24

EXT.P7: COPY OF OBJECTION TO EA NO.28 OF 2011 IN EP NO.90 OF 2009 IN OS NO.58 OF 1995,SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶25

EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER IN EA NO.28/2011 IN EP NO.90/2009 IN OS NO.58/1995 SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶26

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶27

/TRUE COPY/

¶28

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶29

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶30

---------------------------------O.P(C)No.969 OF 2011

¶31

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2011

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The respondent is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakara. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The dispute between the parties was settled in the Lok Adalath and Ext.P1 award was passed. A term in Ext.P1 award is as follows:

¶34

ട� ക�സ�ന� രണ�� വ�ദ�യ�നട share-ല ന�ല��ന സരവ�സ� ക�ഷന�ല ന�ല��ന ന�ട�ടത�ല�� ന�ഷ�നറ�യ�ല�� ഉള അവ��ശ� പ%ര&��യ�� വ�ട� ന��ട��ന �റ� അവ��ശ��ള സമത�ച�ര��ന�.

¶35

The respondent filed E.P.No.90 of 2009 to execute the award. He contended that as per the Award, he is entitled to get 35 cents of land in which the service station is situated and that the rights in respect of the land, service station and the machinery are liable to be conferred on the petitioner by relinquishing the rights of the other sharers. The petitioner

¶36

O.P(C)No.969 OF 2011 2

¶37

filed objections (Ext.P3) dated 13.7.2010 stating that the extent is not 35 cents. Out of the 35 cents, 5 cents is a pathway, which is specifically mentioned in the documents. The respondent(petitioner in the Execution Petition) is entitled to only the balance extent after excluding the pathway.

¶38

The first defendant/first judgment debtor filed this Original Petition for the following reliefs:

¶39

“i) set aside Ext.P8 order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court;

¶40

ii) pass an order dismissing E.A.No.28 of 2011 in E.P.No.90 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakara;

¶41

iii) pass an order directing the Execution Court to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 objection and Ext.P5 Application before proceeding any further with E.P.No.90 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 1995;

¶42

iv) grant the Petitioner such other appropriate interim reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case;

¶43

v) award the Petitioner the costs of this Original Petition.”

¶44

Ext.P8 order was passed in E.A.No.28 of 2011 filed by the respondent to call for the Commissioner's report in the suit along with the records. That application was allowed by the court as per Ext.P8 order. Ext.P3 objection referred to in relief No.(iii) is the objection filed by the

¶45

¶46

petitioner stating that there is a way having an extent of 5 cents and the said extent should be excluded from the property claimed by the respondent.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent submitted that the disputes between the parties have been settled in the following manner:

¶48

a) The parties agree that an extent of 5 cents should be provided as a pathway as mentioned in document No.4098 of 1974.

¶49

b) After earmarking the aforesaid pathway, the balance extent of 30 cents can be provided to the respondent/second plaintiff.

¶50

c) The petitioner agrees to relinquish his right in favour of the respondent in respect of the aforesaid 30 cents of land including service station and machinery.

¶51

d) It is also stated by the parties that the other parties in the suit also approve this agreement.

¶52

e) The court below shall appoint a Commissioner, who will inspect the property with the assistance of a surveyor and demarcate the extent of 5 cents and the balance

¶53

¶54

extent in terms of the agreement as mentioned above.

¶55

The above submissions are recorded and the Original Petition is,

¶56

accordingly, disposed of.

¶57

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶58

cms

Rajagopala Rao v. G.K.Vasudeva Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajagopala Rao v. G.K.Vasudeva Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Ibrahimkutty Vs State & Another

Hamza Vs Yuseph

Kunnappada Govindan Vs Puthiyapurayil Kunhiraman

Gireesh @ Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala

C.v.John Vs C.v.Paul

Abraham K.J Vs Federal Bank Ltd.