Dismissed

Thandavan v. Pradeesh

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016Ex.FA/32/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an Execution First Appeal. It held that the appellant failed to demonstrate possession of the property and could not overcome the unregistered status of alleged partnership agreements. The bar under the Indian Partnership Act prevented establishing an independent right in the property.

What did the court decide?

The Execution First Appeal was dismissed; the impugned order directing delivery of the property after removal of obstruction was affirmed.

Thandavan Vs Pradeesh — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

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

¶6

Ex.FA.No. 32 of 2016 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN E.A.No.92/16 IN E.A.No.295/15 IN E.P.No.67/14 IN OS 135/2012 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM DATED 6.10.2016

¶8

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶9

THANDAVAN,

¶10

S/O LATE DANDAPANI CHETTIAR, SANJAI NIVAS, THRIKKANGODE ROAD, MANISSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:

¶13

PRADEESH,

¶14

S/O MADHAVAN, VELLALIL HOUSE, PANAYOOR P.O, KOONATHARA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679 522.

¶15

RAMACHANDRAN,

¶16

S/O RAVUNNI, PALTHODI HOUSE, P.O KAYILIYAD, SHORNUR 679 122, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

SOMAN, S/O PERUMBILAVIL SREEKUMAR, KOTHAYUR DESOM, VANIYAMKULAM P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679 522.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI (CAVEATOR)

¶19

THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶21

Ex.F.A.No.32 of 2016

¶22

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Chitambaresh, J.

¶25

We do not find any illegality in the order of the court below allowing the application for removal of obstruction put in by the decree holder. The appellant/obstructor has miserably failed to show that he is in possession of the property allegedly belonging to the partnership firm. The claim is rested on Exts.B4 and B5 agreements written on stamp papers of value 50/- which did not₹ inspire the confidence of the court below as found in the order impugned. The appellant has also not let in any oral evidence to prove the genuineness of Exts.B4 and B5 agreements which are said to have been executed in collusion as contended by the decree holder.

¶26

Even otherwise the bar under Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is fatal for the appellant to resist the execution of delivery. Exts.B4 and B5 agreements are not registered and the appellant has not been shown as a partner in

¶27

¶28

Ex.F.A.No.32 of 2016

¶29

the register of firms. No right independent of the judgment debtor has been established by the appellant in the proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no warrant to interfere with the order of the court below directing the delivery of the decree schedule property after the removal of the obstruction.

¶30

The Execution First Appeal fails. Dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶33

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶34

skj

¶35

True copy

¶36

P.A to Judge

Thandavan v. Pradeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thandavan v. Pradeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

C.M.Moideenkunhi Vs Assyamma

Jacob Vs Raymond