Disposed

Mukri Rahmath v. Mattookkarathi Abdul Rahiman

Kerala HC16 Sept 2015OP(C)/1717/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed the opener challenging a commissioner's report on property identity. It held it was unnecessary to ascertain identity at that stage; a preliminary decree could be passed if entitlement was proved, with identity to be ascertained later during execution.

What did the court decide?

The opposer (O.P.) No. 1717 of 2015 was closed; the court need not consider the commissioner's report.

Mukri Rahmath Vs Mattookkarathi Abdul Rahiman — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/25TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 1717 of 2015 (O)

¶6

OS 279/2013 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

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

¶10

MUKRI RAHMATH, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. NABEESUMMA, NEAR THULUVANNUR TEMPLE, THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN

¶12

RESPONDENT :

¶13

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

¶14

MATTOOKKARATHI ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, PAYYANNUR AMSOM DESOM, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670001

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

OP(C).No. 1717 of 2015 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 279 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN OS NO. 297/2013 ON THE FILE F MUNSIFFS COURT, PAYYANNUR.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DT 19/2/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO. 292013.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE EYE SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH HIS INTERIM REPORT DT 10/2/2013

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE IA NO. 434 OF 2015 IN OS NO. 279/2013.

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO. 434/2015 IN OS NO. 279 OF 2013.

¶26

P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 2/6/2015 IN IA NO. 434 OF 2015 IN OS NO. 279/2013 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT PAYYANNUR.

¶27

P8: COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN IN RESPECT OF THE 10 CENTS OF LAND INTEND TO SELL BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶33

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

¶34

O.P.(C)No.1717 of 2015

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2015

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.229 of 2013, which is for specific performance of agreement for sale filed by the respondent. The dispute is with regard to the identity of the property covered by the agreement. On the application of the respondent, the trial court appointed a commissioner. The commissioner submitted an interim report and a rough sketch, which are marked as Ext.P3 and

¶39

Ext.P4 in this O.P. The petitioner filed IA.No.434 of 2015 to remit the report. By Ext.P7 the learned Munsiff dismissed it. The legality is challenged in this O.P.

¶40

Heard.

¶41

The facts of the case suggest that it is not at all

¶42

necessary for the trial court to ascertain the identity of the property covered by agreement for sale at this stage. The

¶43

court may pass a preliminary decree for specific performance if the respondent proves his entitlement to it. Thereafter, the identity may be ascertained when an application is filed for passing the final decree and

¶44

¶45

O.P.(C)No.1717 of 2015

¶46

executing sale deed. The petitioner may raise any

¶47

objection he may have when the report is filed.

¶48

With the above observation this O.P is closed. The court need not take into consideration the report already

¶49

available in the case.

¶50

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶51

R.AV

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

PA to Judge

Mukri Rahmath v. Mattookkarathi Abdul Rahiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukri Rahmath v. Mattookkarathi Abdul Rahiman

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

P.Bhaskaran Vs the Managing Director

Shaji Joseph Vs M/S. Vikas Hire Purchase Company Pvt. Ltd.

Chakyayi Rajan Vs Mandayil Rugmini

Suhara Vs Manajeri Housing Co-Opertive Society

C.N.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Aravind

Vasantha Kumari Vs Saravanan