Dismissed

Haridas v. Sajith

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016OP(C)/1/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition filed by defendant-appellants challenging a lower court order dismissing their application to stay execution. The court held that the underlying decree was declaratory and non-executable, and since no execution petition violating an injunction was filed, there was no basis for staying execution.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the order dismissing the application to stay execution is dismissed.

Haridas Vs Sajith — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 1 of 2016 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2015 IN I.A 607/2015 IN A.S 170/2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-II, MAVELIKARA.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. HARIDAS AGED 54 YEARS S/O. PAPPU, KANNEPARAMBIL VEEDU, PRAYAR VADAKKUM MURI PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶10

2. GEETHA AGED 47 YEARS W/O. HARIDAS, KANNEPARAMBIL VEEDU PRAYAR VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶12

SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1. SAJITH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.SADANANDAN, KAPPIMANNEL VEEDU PRAYAR VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 527.

¶15

2. PUSHPALATH W/O. SAJITH, KAPPIMANNEL VEEDU, PARAYAR VADAKKUM MURI PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 527.

¶16

3. SHOBHA, AGED 36 YEARS D/O. NALINI KANNEPARAMBIL VADAKKATHIL VEEDU (KRISHNAPURATH) PRAYAR VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 527.

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(C).No. 1 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.344/2011 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT AT KAYAMKULAM.

¶22

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO. 344/2011 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT AT KAYAMKULAM.

¶23

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30.3.2015 IN OS NO.344/2011 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT AT KAYAMKULAM.

¶24

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN A.S NO. 170/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT -II, MAVELIKKARA.

¶25

EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY FO THE IA NO. 607/2-15 IN A.S NO.170/2015 OF ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II, MAVELIKKARA.

¶26

EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERDT. 10.10.2015 IN IA NO. 607/2015 IN A.S NO. 170/201 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II, MAVELIKKARA.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶28

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

=======================

¶34

¶35

============================

¶36

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioners were defendants 1 and 2 in O.S No.344/2011 of Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The trial court, by the decree passed after the trial, declared that the respondents 1 and 2 have a right of easement by prescription over the disputed pathway. It also prohibited the petitioners from interfering with that right. The petitioners filed A.S No.170/2015 in District Court, Mavelikara. Along with the appeal memorandum they filed an application to stay the execution of the decree. That has been dismissed by Ext.P6 order. This is challenged in this original petition.

¶39

Heard.

¶40

A declaratory decree is not an executable decree. So the

¶41

apprehension of the petitioners that the decree will be executed has no foundation. One of the relief granted is a perpetual injunction. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed an execution petition alleging violation of the injunction. So there is no question of staying execution of the decree.

¶42

In the result, this original petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶44

vdv/04/01/16

Haridas v. Sajith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas v. Sajith

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

Maryam K. Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd.

N.Sasidhara Menon Vs Saudamini Amma

Mani Alias Rajendran Vs Thankamani Amma

Devayani Vs Sarojini

Sreekumar Vs Krishnan Potty

T.Bright Vs Chacko