The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of discharge of a Receiver in a property suit, finding no justification to question the order as the Receiver had reported it was barren land requiring no improvements.
None.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 36918 of 2003
PETITIONER
NARAYANAN KUTTAN, KIZHAKKARIKATHU VEEDU VATTATHOTTAM, MEKKETHATTU PURAYIDOM, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM
BY ADVS.SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1. PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANTHAN NADAR, RESIDING AT KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM.
2. PARAMESWARAN NADAR SARVESANANTHAN NADAR, RESIDING AT DO. DO.
3. PARAMESWARAN NADAR SACHIDANANTHAN NADAR, RESIDING AT DO. DO.
4. PARAMESWARAN NADAR SAJEEVANANTHAN NADAR, RESIDING AT DO. DO.
5. K.CHELLAN, RECEIVER, ADVOCATE, NEYYATTINKARA.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 36918 of 2003
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : N I L
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
W.P.(C).No.36918 of 2003
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinakara in I.A.No.4160 of 2003 in O.S. No.833 of 1961. It is seen from the records that a Receiver was appointed in respect of plaint A schedule property when the matter was pending in O.S.No.833 of 1961. The successors in interest of the plaintiff in O.S.No.833 of 1961 preferred a petition to discharge the Receiver, after the disposal of O.S.No.665 of 1988, another suit between some of the parties. The learned Munsiff, after considering various aspects, directed the Receiver to handover possession of the property to the plaintiff. Accordingly, possession has been handed over. That order is challenged by the 5th defendant in O.S.No.833 of 1961 in that suit.
WPC No.36918/2003
2
contesting respondents.
I find no justification in putting up a challenge against discharge of the Receiver and asking him to handover possession to the successful party. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed.
Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE
JV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the discharge of a Receiver and his directive to hand over possession has merit.
Narayanan Kuttan
Parameswaran Nadar Sathyanthan Nadar
Parameswaran Nadar Sarvesanthan Nadar
Parameswaran Nadar非典dan Nadar
Parameswaran Nadar Sajeevananthan Nadar
K. Chellan
A. Hariprasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
