Allowed

C.P.Saraswathy v. C.P.Venugopal

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014FAO/5/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment heard two first appeal orders (FAOs) arising from two suits concerning a property dispute between brothers. The lower appellate court had remanded the suits to the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeals and directed the trial court to dispose of the suits afresh within one year, permitting amendment of pleadings and a fresh commission with a Taluk Surveyor.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to dispose of both suits afresh within one year, permitting amendment of pleadings, and ordering a fresh commission with the Taluk Surveyor.

C.P.Saraswathy Vs C.P.Venugopal — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

FAO.No. 5 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 210/2004 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA DATED 11-01-2010

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 335/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR DATED 30-08-2004

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶9

C.P.SARASWATHY, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.PARVATHY, MADHAVA SADANAM, FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOMALAMKUNNU PUNALUR MURI & VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR

¶11

SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR

¶12

SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/:

¶14

C.P.VENUGOPAL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN ACHARY, CHITHRANJALIYIL, KOMALAMKUNNU PUNALUR MURI & VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK PIN - 695301.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶16

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2014, ALONG WITH FAO NO.353/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

................................................................ F.A.O. Nos. 5 & 353 of 2011

¶19

............................................................... Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶20

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶21

F.A.O. No.353 of 2011 has arisen from the judgment and decree in A.S.213/04 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.340/2000 of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. F.A.O. No.5 of 2011 has arisen from the judgment and decree in A.S.210 of 2004 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara which was filed against judgment and decree in O.S.335/00 of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur.

¶22

O.S.335/00 is a simple suit for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction, whereas, O.S.340/00 is a suit for fixation of boundary and consequential injunction. The plaintiff in O.S.No.340/00 is the brother of the plaintiff in O.S.335/00. It is the admitted

¶23

FAO Nos.5 & 353/2011

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

case of the parties that an extent of 8 cents of property was settled in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.335/00 by their mother. On the date of settlement deed itself, the mother of the parties had gifted 20 cents of property in favour of her another son namely Madhusoodanan and the remaining 4 cents of property with her, to her husband, who is the father of the parties. Subsequently, the mother of the parties cancelled the gift in favour of Madhusoodanan in respect of 20 cents of property and executed a sale deed in respect of the said 20 cents of property in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.340/00. On the death of the father as intestate, in respect of 4 cents of property, which was gifted to him by his wife, devolved on his legal heirs. The plaintiff in O.S.340/00 purchased the said 4 cents from the legal heirs of the father. Even though, the plaintiff in O.S.335/00 is not a signatory to the said sale deed, she has not forwarded any claim or right over the said property. The property obtained as aforesaid through two documents by the plaintiff in O.S.340/00, is

¶26

FAO Nos.5 & 353/2011 -: 3 :-

¶27

situated at the western side of the property having an extent of 8 cents being claimed by the plaintiff in O.S.335/00.

¶28

According to the plaintiff in O.S.335/00 there was

¶29

a granite foundation separating her property from the property of the plaintiff in O.S.340/00, and subsequently she has put up a compound wall on such granite foundation. It is alleged that the plaintiff in O.S.340/00 has put up a carporch attached to his house in such a manner as a portion of it protrudes into her property. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.340/00 is that there was no separating boundary between the two plots and subsequently by encroaching into the portions of his property, the plaintiff in O.S.335/00 has put up a new compound wall.

¶30

Four Commissioners were appointed by the trial court and the Commissioners' reports and plans were obtained. First two Commissioners were not accompanied by surveyors; whereas the last two Commissioners were accompanied by surveyors and plans were also appended

¶31

FAO Nos.5 & 353/2011

¶32

-: 4 :-

¶33

with their reports. The reports and plans of the last two Commissioners vary each other. The trial court has chosen to decree O.S.335/00 as prayed for and to dismiss O.S.340/00, on which separate appeals were preferred. The lower appellate court, through the impugned judgment, was of the view that the matter has to be decided afresh by the trial court, for which the judgments were set aside and both the suits were remitted to the trial court. The plaintiff in O.S.335/00 has come up in appeal challenging the remand order in both the appeals.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer and the learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Bhagaval Singh. On hearing both the learned counsel for the parties in extenso, it has come out that the matter requires reconsideration by the trial court, as ordered by the appellate court. At the same time, the learned counsel for the appellant has expressed a heart burn that on going through the observations made by the

¶35

FAO Nos.5 & 353/2011

¶36

-: 5 :-

¶37

lower appellate court, the trial court may become prejudiced, and would be forced to pass judgments in terms of the observations made by the lower appellate court. From the argument, it appears that the limited request is to direct the trial court to dispose of both the suits within a specific time frame, quite untrammeled by any of the observations made by the lower appellate court in the impugned judgments. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that an open remand can be made, provided the parties are permitted to amend their plaints, if so advised, and also to adduce fresh/further evidence in the matter, including the appointment of another Commissioner with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor. On hearing either side, this Court is of the view that the said aspects pointed out by both the learned counsel for the parties deserve to be considered.

¶38

In the result, both the FAOs are disposed of by directing the trial court to dispose of both the suits afresh in accordance with law, within a period of one year from today.

¶39

FAO Nos.5 & 353/2011

¶40

-: 6 :-

¶41

The parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings, if so advised. The court below shall grant an opportunity to the parties to take out a fresh Commission, with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, to identify the properties and to prepare necessary plan and report. In the nature of this FAO, there is no order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶43

ul/-

¶44

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

C.P.Saraswathy v. C.P.Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Saraswathy v. C.P.Venugopal

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

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S Hotel Panchavady

State of Kerala Vs a. Durairaj

Anuja Abdul Manaf Vs Baiju

A.Gopalan Nair Vs Kumbakkara Raman Nair

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Thulaseedharan

M/S.Glassco Vs the Regional Director, Esi Corporation