Disposed

Emmilari M.Panjakashi Amma v. Kolathayi Madhusoodana Kurup

Kerala HC12 Nov 2014AS/741/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal filed by a defendant appealing an order in execution proceedings. The parties reached a compromise where the appellant agreed to pay the full decree amount and costs. The High Court recorded satisfaction and directed the executing court to set aside the sale of the property.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of compromise. The sale of the appellant's property held by the executing court is set aside and the decree is satisfied.

Emmilari M.Panjakashi Amma Vs Kolathayi Madhusoodana… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/21ST KARTHIKA, 1936

¶6

AS.No. 741 of 2000 ( )

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANT:

¶8

EMMILARI M. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, W/O. BALAN NAIR @ BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MULLERI HOUSE, PAYYADITHAZHAM,PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 019.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

KOLATHAYI MADHUSOODHANA KURUP, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, BHAGAVATHY PARAMBATH HOUSE, OLAVANNA AMZOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶12

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAJA

¶13

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

acd

¶15

K.T. SANKARAN & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶16

A.S.No.741 of 2000

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2014

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

K.T. SANKARAN,J.

¶20

The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.353/1998 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode. The suit was filed by the respondent for realisation of ₹3,10,000/- together with interest. The defendant

¶21

contested the suit. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 19^th February, 2000, decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of 3,10,000/- together with₹ interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with proportionate costs from the defendant

and her assets.

A.S.No.741/2000

Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned senior

¶26

counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, in full and final settlement of all the claims in the suit including interest and proportionate costs, the appellant/defendant is prepared to pay a sum of 6,37,100/- (Rupees six lakh₹ thirty seven thousand one hundred only) and a further sum

¶27

of 12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred only)₹

¶28

as costs of respondent/plaintiff before this Court. The

¶29

learned senior counsel also submitted that when the appeal was admitted on 22.12.2000, stay of execution was granted for a period of one month and it was further extended by one month as per order dated 25.1.2001. Thereafter, stay was being extended from time to time and it was extended until further orders on 8.8.2001. It is submitted that

¶30

process for communication of stay order was paid on 1.1.2001. However, on 5.1.2001, the Executing Court sold

¶31

the property of the judgment debtor/defendant in Court

¶32

A.S.No.741/2000 3

¶33

auction and it was purchased by the decree

¶34

holder/plaintiff. The learned senior counsel for the

¶35

appellant submitted that sale of the property belonging to the judgment debtor/defendant, at the time when stay order granted by this Court was in force, was quite illegal and it is liable to set aside. It is also submitted that the

¶36

sale was not confirmed, when the Executing Court was apprised of the fact that the same took place when the

¶37

stay was in force.

¶38

Sri. P.R. Venkatesh, the learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the respondent/plaintiff accepted the offer made by the appellant/defendant and he received the aforesaid sum in

¶40

full and final settlement of the decree in

¶41

O.S.No.353/1998. He also agreed that the respondent/plaintiff accepted 12,500/- as costs in this₹

¶42

Court. Sri. Venkatesh also submitted, on instructions, that

¶43

A.S.No.741/2000

¶44

¶45

the respondent/plaintiff has no objection in setting aside

¶46

the sale held in execution.

¶47

In view of the compromise entered into between

¶48

the parties, the appeal is disposed of in terms of that compromise. Accordingly, half of the Court fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal shall be refunded to the

¶49

appellant/defendant. It is declared that the sale of the property belonging to the appellant/defendant held by the Executing Court will stand set aside. We also record full satisfaction of the decree, since the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the aforesaid sums were received by the counsel on behalf of the

¶50

respondent/plaintiff.

¶51

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶52

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

acd

A.S.No.741/2000

K.T.SANKARAN & P.D.RAJAN , JJ.

¶57

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

¶58

A.S.No.741 OF 2000

JUDGMENT

13.11.2014

A.S.No.741/2000 6

A.S.No.741/2000 7

Emmilari M.Panjakashi Amma v. Kolathayi Madhusoodana Kurup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmilari M.Panjakashi Amma v. Kolathayi Madhusoodana Kurup

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

Mahesh Chimmanlal Vs Ramesh Chandak

Seetha Dasan Vs Fathima

K.B.Abdul Rahim Vs Aysha M.M.

B.U.Afsal Vs Jasmine Rasheed

Shimmy Raphael Vs Usha Thulasidasan

Mathew A.M. Vs Manka Paul@ Saramma