Dismissed

Ramesh Menon v. C.Mohanan

Kerala HC18 Sept 2015OP(C)/2208/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an appeal challenging the Sub Court's dismissal of a stay application under Section 151 CPC. The hold that a licensee cannot claim possession, and even if the underlying decree is flawed, the licensee cannot continue occupation after licence termination without vacant possession.

What did the court decide?

Application for stay of execution of the decree in the counter claim was dismissed.

Ramesh Menon Vs C.Mohanan — 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

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/27TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 2208 of 2015 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

RAMESH MENON

¶8

S/O.UNNIKRISHNA MENON, AGED 45 YEARS THUSHARA, EDUTHIL LANE CHEEYARAM, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. C.MOHANAN, AGED 62 YEARS BHAMALAYAM, POOKODU, BHAGAVATHI NADA NEYYATTINKARA-695 141.

¶12

2. DHANUSH, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.C.MOHANAN, BHAMALAYAM, POOKODU BHAGAVATHI NADA, NEYYATTINKARA-695 141.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

OP(C).No. 2208 of 2015 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2015 IN I.A. NO.1147/2014 IN A.S. NO.108/2014 PASS BY THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶20

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 30.6.2014 IN O.S.NO.481/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶21

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION AS E.P NO.224/2014 IN O.S.NO.481/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 10.11.2014.

¶22

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL A.S.NO.108/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 7.11.2014.

¶23

EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.481/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C)No.2208 of 2015

¶30

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2015

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.481 of 2011 and the respondents are the defendants. The plaint schedule property belongs to the latter. The latter allowed the former to occupy the property on the basis of a licence agreement. On the allegation that the respondents had the intention to evict the appellant by force, the petitioner instituted the suit for perpetual injunction. The first respondent raised a counter claim. He prayed for eviction of the appellant. The suit was dismissed and the counter claim was allowed. The appellant has filed two appeals, AS.No.108 of 2014 and AS.No.109 of 2014 in the court of Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara. In AS.No.108 of 2014 he filed an application to stay execution of the decree passed in favour of the first respondent in his counter claim. BY Ext.P1 order the learned Sub Judge has dismissed it. The correctness of the dismissal is assailed.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the transaction between the appellant and the

¶34

O.P.(C)No.2208 of 2015 2

¶35

respondents is a licence only. A licensee cannot claim possession, he has only occupation. The licence can be terminated any time. If the termination is illegal the only remedy is to seek for compensation.

¶36

In this case the prayer in the O.P is to restrain

¶37

the first respondent from evicting the first appellant licensee. The trial court has passed a decree for eviction. If after termination of the licence the licensee does not vacate the property, the licensee is entitled to seek for a mandatory injunction; even a suit for recovery of possession is unnecessary. So even if it is assumed that the decree in favour of the first respondent is not legal the

¶38

appellant cannot be allowed to continue in occupation of the plaint schedule property. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in Ext.P1 order passed by the learned Sub Judge.

¶39

In the r esult, this O.P is dismissed.

¶40

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶41

R.AV

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

PA to Judge

Ramesh Menon v. C.Mohanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Menon v. C.Mohanan

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

Biya K.P Vs a.C.Sureshkumar

Smt.Sheela George Vs Smt.Mary Antony

Chandramohan Vs Y'S Men International South West Indian Region

The Assyrian Charities Kuries Ltd. Vs James C.Joseph

Naseema Vs Baby Shyama Alias Shyama

Sudhakaran Vs Pampuram Sahadevan