Dismissed

Lissy K.Francis v. Mahesh Kumar

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016RFA (MISC.)/823/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order vacating an attachment in a suit for return of advance paid under an agreement for sale. The court held that questions on the agreement's genuineness and title validity were extraneous to the matter before it. The court clarified that its observations would not bind parties in other litigations and disposed of the appeal without further directions.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal was disposed of with a clarification that observations in the impugned order regarding the agreement and title would not bind parties in other litigations, and no further direction wa

Lissy K.Francis Vs Mahesh Kumar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

RFA (MISC.).No. 823 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA.1074(a)/12 IN OS 87/2012 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 23-10-2014

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANDANT NO.1:

¶8

LISSY K.FRANCIS, AGED 53 YEARS W/O. FRANCIS, KALANKERIL HOUSE, KODAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE ALAPPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM) SRI.E.M.MURUGAN SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIM PETITIONERS(2) & DEFENDANT (2):

¶11

MAHESH KUMAR, S/O.P.S. BHAGYANATHAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, THEVARVATTOM MURI THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE. 688528.

¶12

SARASA KUMAR,

¶13

S/O. DAMODARAN, KAMBAKKARAN, CHITTEZHATHU THEVARVATTOM MURI, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE. 688528

¶14

MATHAI

¶15

S/O.K.U. KURIAN, WEST OF POTTEKKERI THEVARVATTOM MURI, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE. 688528

¶16

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD (CAVEATOR)

¶17

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL(MISCELLANEOUS) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶19

----------------------------------R.F.A.(M).No.823 of 2014 ----------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Hariprasad, J.

¶22

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cherthala in I.A.No. 1074(a)/12 in O.S.No.87/12. The suit is one for return of advance amount paid pursuant to an agreement for sale. Pending the suit, there was an order of attachment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC in favour of the plaintiff. After the decree, the claim petitioner (a third party) approached the court below with a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 and Section 151 CPC. In that matter, the court below passed the impugned order, vacating the order of attachment. The reasons stated therefor are challenged by the appellant.

¶23

2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the suit claim has been satisfied by paying off the liability under the decree. However, the

¶25

RFAM.823/14

¶26

¶27

contention of the appellant is that though the decree claim has been satisfied, she is aggrieved by some observations in the impugned order passed by the court below regarding the genuineness of the agreement for sale and also the validity of the title of the defendant over the disputed property. We are of the view that those questions are extraneous to the matter which came up before the court below. It is also submitted by the counsel that there are other litigations between the parties.

¶28

In the above context, it is made clear that none of the observations in the impugned order will be binding on the parties in any other litigation. The pending matters shall be decided untrammelled by any of the observations in this order and purely on the merits of the matter. As no further direction is necessary in this appeal, the same is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/A. HARIPRASAD, Judge.

¶30

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

¶31

kkb.

¶32

/True copy/

¶33

PS to Judge

Lissy K.Francis v. Mahesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lissy K.Francis v. Mahesh Kumar

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

Vilasini.K. Vs T.K.Rajagopalan and Others

Vinodkumar Vs Visalakshy

Krishnan.K.K Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Viswanathan Vs Sunny Thomas

Sri.Mohanan Vs Sri.Joshy

Rani Aravind Vs State of Kerala