Disposed

T.C.Mathew v. Firoskhan

Kerala HC17 Jan 2017OP(C)/900/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of O.P.(C).Nos. 900/2016 and 1707/2016. The court found no reason to interfere with the Sub-Court order directing defendants to vacate and surrender possession. It ordered the registry to return room keys to the plaintiff's counsel.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing defendants to vacate and surrender possession was upheld. Keys of certain rooms were ordered to be returned to the plaintiff's counsel.

T.C.Mathew Vs Firoskhan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 900 of 2016 (O) --------------------------

¶6

IN OS 138/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

T.C.MATHEW, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.T.M.CHANDY, THENGUPALLIL HOUSE, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. FIROSKHAN, SON OF ABASS, RESIDING AT KARUVILA HOUSE, VAYYAKAVU, MANIKKAM MURI, PULLAMBARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD -695 541.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶13

3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.

¶14

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CANTONMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶15

5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶16

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.S.SINDHU

¶18

SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI R2-R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN

¶19

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2017 ALONG WITH OPC. 1707/2016 AND OPC. 1723/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

OP(C).No. 900 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT-O.S.138/2015 OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER 24.08.2015 IN I.A.2834/2015 IN O.S.138/2015 OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶26

P3 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED IN O.S.138/2015 OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE INJUNCTION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.S.138/2015 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶28

P5 COPY OF PLAINT - O.S.1988/2015 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.90/DPTN/16-B3 DATED 13.3.2016 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT

¶31

P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶32

P9 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶33

P10 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶34

P11 PHOTOGRAPHS

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES

¶36

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ME TO THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS. EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2327/2015 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE B - DIARY PROCEEDINGS IN I.A.NO.2834/2015 IN OS.NO.138/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT FOR SALE DTD.24.7.2015 BEARING NO.2174/2015 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM.

Msv/

-2-

-2-

OP(C).No. 900 of 2016 (O)

¶41

EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING NO.260/2016 DTD.3.3.2016 AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF JAGANNATHAN DTD.3.3.2016.

¶42

EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION IN F.I.R. 260/2016 DTD.9.3.2016.

¶43

EXT.R1(f): TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT BANK STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA.

¶44

EXT.R1(g): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO APPEAR ON 30/12/2016.

¶45

EXT.R1(g)(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO APPEAR ON 5/1/2017

¶46

EXT.R1(g)(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO APPEAR ON 27/12/2016.

¶47

EXT.R1(g)(c): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO APPEAR ON 26/12/2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶52

========================= O.P.(C).Nos.900 & 1707 of 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2017

¶53

O.P.(C).No.900 of 2016 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. O.P.(C).No.1707 of 2016 is filed by the defendants in the above suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff approached this court in O.P.(C).No.900 of 2016 seeking relief to put back in possession as the defendants, in violation of the injunction order, dispossessing him. The defendants filed O.P.(C).No.1707 of 2016 challenging an order of the court below in I.A.No.1213 of 2016. Ext.P15 is the said order. Ext.P15 order was passed directing the defendants to vacate the building situated in the plaint schedule property and surrender the possession of the same to the plaintiff.

¶54

OPC 900/16 & 1707/16 -2-

¶55

Having considered the facts and

¶56

circumstances, this court is of the view that the court below is perfectly justified in putting back the plaintiff in possession. However, the fact remains that keys of certain rooms are in custody of the court pursuant to the direction of this court. Therefore, this court is of the view that the Registry shall return the keys to the counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff in O.P.(C).No.900 of 2016 as against acknowledgment. I do not find any reason for interference with the order passed by the court below. The parties are bound by the orders passed by the court below.

¶57

The original petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶60

T.C.Mathew v. Firoskhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Mathew v. Firoskhan

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

Rajamma Vs Devaki

A.Abdul Rasheed Vs Asha C. Abraham

Rose Marie Pereira Vs Jhancy @ Bridget Shaji

Soudamini Vs Gangadharan

T.C.Mathew Vs Firoze Khan

Sarassamma Vs Green Palace Resorts & Hotels (India) Private Ltd.