Disposed

C.M.Moideenkunhi v. Assyamma

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016AS/1002/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal and a civil revision petition filed by a transferee who was not a party to the original suit. Since the third party is not bound by the lower court's decree, there was no necessity to entertain the appeal/revision; the petitioner is free to file a fresh suit.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit and the Civil Revision Petition were disposed of without entertaining them due to the appellant being a non-party.

C.M.Moideenkunhi Vs Assyamma — Partition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

AS.No. 1002 of 1998 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 171/1991 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 21-09-1995

¶7

APPELLANT(S):/3RD PARTY:

¶8

C.M.MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMAD, MUSLIM, LANDHOLDER RESIDING AT CHERIYAVEEDU, CHEROOR KADAVU, P.O.CHEROOR, CHENGALA VILLAGE KASARGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 10 & D1 TO D14

¶11

1. ASSYAMMA, AGED 61 YEARS (Died) (Recorded) D/O.LATE AISABI CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶12

(It is recorded that the first respondent died during the pendency of the suit before the court below and that the legal representatives of deceased R1 are R8 and R10, as per order dated 13/12/11 in I.A.No.4546/2010)

¶13

KHADEEJUMMA, AGED 58 YEARS D/O.LATE AISABI

¶14

CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶15

ABDULLA, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE AISABI CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶16

MARIYUMMA, AGED 52 YEARS D/O.LATE AISABI CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶17

AS.1002/1998

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

DAINABI, AGED 46 YEARS D/O.LATE AISABI CHENGALA, KANATHMOOLA, CHENGALA VILLAGE KASARGOD TALUK P.O., CHENGALA.

¶20

HASSINAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE AISABI CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶21

MOHAMMAD, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.LATE AISABI CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶22

BEEPATHUMMA, AGED 58 YEARS D/O.LATE ASSYAMMA PERUMBALA VILLAGE, P.O.PERUMBALA, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶23

ABDULLA, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE ASSYAMMA CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O. CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶24

MARIYUMMA, AGED 49 YEARS D/O.LATE ASSYAMMA. DELI IN PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK P.O.PERUMBALA.

¶25

MOHAMMAD (DEAD)

¶26

ABDULKHADER (DEAD)

¶27

ABDULRAHIMAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.LATE THAVAVAKAI ANDUNHI, MUSLIM, CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O.CHENGALA KASARGOD TALUK.

¶28

ABDULLA, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.LATE MOHAMMAD CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, P.O.CHEROOR.

¶29

ABOOBACKER, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE MOHAMMAD CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, P.O.CHEROOR.

¶30

AS.1002/1998

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

KHADIJUMMA, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.LATE MOHAMMAD CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, P.O.CHEROOR.

¶33

ABBAS, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LATE MOHAMMAD CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, P.O.CHEROOR.

¶34

MOIDEEN S/O.LATE MOHAMMAD CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, P.O.CHEROOR.

¶35

BEEPATHUMMA, AGED 49 YEARS D/O.LATE ABDULKHADER CHEROOR IN CHENGALA VILLAGE KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.CHEROOR.

¶36

MARIYUMMA, AGED 49 YEARS D/O.LATE ABDULKHADER THAVAKAL HOUSE, THAYANNUR, P.O.ANANDASHRAM, HOSDRUG TALUK.

¶37

NABEESA ABDULLA, AGED 44 YEARS D/O.LATE ABDULKHADER MINI ESTATE, NAIMMARMOOLE, CHENGALA VILLAGE P.O.ALAMPADY, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶38

MUHAMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.LATE ABDULKHADER CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK P.O.CHEROOR, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶39

AYSHA MOHAMMAD, AGED 40 YEARS. D/O.LATE ABDULKHADER THEKKIL VILLAGE, POST THEKKIL FERRY KASARGOD TALUK.

¶40

ABBAS, AGED 69 YEARS, (11TH PLAINTIFF. TRANSPOSED AS D14) S/O.THAVAVAKAI ANDUNHI, CHEROOR, CHENGALA VILLAGE, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶41

R3 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI R13 TO 23 BY ADV. SRI.PVV.SUBRAMANIAM

¶42

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRP. 315/1996, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶44

A.S.No.1002 of 1998 & C.R.P.No.315 of 1996

¶45

¶46

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2016

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

Chitambaresh, J.

¶49

The appellant/revision petitioner is not a party to the suit from which the Appeal Suit and the Civil Revision Petition arises. The appellant/revision petitioner claims to be a transferee from a sharer of the suit property.

¶50

Neither the sharer (transferor) nor the appellant/revision petitioner (transferee) are parties. The Appeal Suit arises from the preliminary decree for partition and the Civil Revision Petition arises from an order refusing impleadment.

¶51

The revision petitioner sought impleadment in the suit which was turned down and hence the Civil Revision Petition. The Appeal Suit arises from the preliminary decree for partition. Both the cases have been filed after obtaining leave to appeal/revision.

¶52

There is no necessity to entertain the appeal/revision petition at the instance of a third party. This is because the appellant/revision petitioner is not bound by the decree of the court

¶53

AS.1002/1998 & CRP.315/1996

¶54

below. Suffice it to say that the appellant/revision petitioner is free to file a fresh suit to agitate his claims.

¶55

The Appeal Suit and the Civil Revision Petition are disposed of accordingly.

¶56

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶57

sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶58

nj/18.10.2016

¶59

//True Copy//

¶60

P.S. to Judge.

C.M.Moideenkunhi v. Assyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Moideenkunhi v. Assyamma

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

Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Suresh Kumar and Another

Anandavally Vs Nirmala Dharmarajan

P.M.Jabir Vs C.P.Abdul Jabbar Haji

Sam.K.Philip Vs Mather Projects Private Limited

Thandavan Vs Pradeesh

Jacob Vs Raymond