Disposed

Brahandala Channatti v. Muraleedhara Kurup

Kerala HC14 Jul 2017Con.Case(C)/877/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt case hearing compliance with directions in an earlier civil judgment. The Court recorded statements from both sides that the directions were complied with, noting a grievance by the petitioner regarding an execution matter, granted liberty to agitate, and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to agitate grievances regarding item No.4 in Annexure-A2.

Brahandala Channatti Vs Muraleedhara Kurup — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2017/23RD ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 877 of 2017 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 12796/2016, DATED 01-04-2016

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

BRAHANDALACHANNATTI,

¶9

AGED 67 YEARS, D/O. MEENAKSHI CHANNATTI, KARUNYA, MALAMEL BHAGOM MURI, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, KEERIKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 502.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶11

SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

MURALEEDHARA KURUP, AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TAHASILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O, ALAPPUZHA-690 514.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.GOPINATHAN

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 14-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 877 of 2017 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 12796/2016 DATED 01.04.2016.

¶21

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO. 81 OF 2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM, DATED 10.02.2014.

¶22

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AMEEN, DATED 25.11.2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EXECUTING COURT.

¶23

ANNEXURE A4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.03.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT COURT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

**********************************************************************

¶31

Contempt Case (C) No.877 of 2017

¶32

**********************************************************************

¶33

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2017

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Both sides submit that the directions in the judgment in

¶36

W.P.(C) No.12796 of 2016 dated 1.4.2016, have been complied with. However, the petitioner has a further grievance regarding item No.4 referred in Annexure-A2. The

¶37

petitioner is free to agitate the above in accordance with the

¶38

law. With the liberty as above, this Contempt Case is closed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶41

Brahandala Channatti v. Muraleedhara Kurup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahandala Channatti v. Muraleedhara Kurup

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

Ammini Amma Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited

T.K.Prabhavathy Vs the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam

Kerala Water Authority Vs B.Vijaya Kumar

Sunil Sivadasan Vs Sri. Suresh Kumar S

Biju K.M. Vs District Collector

The Headmistress, Moonniyur High Scool Vs the State of Kerala