Remanded

Lali Bhaskaran v. Thomas

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019OP(C)/1625/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an execution order permitting a compound wall construction, arguing it conflicted with a compromise agreement clause. The court set aside the order and directed a fresh order specifying permitted properties.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and directed the lower court to pass a fresh order within two months specifically mentioning the property around which construction is permitted.

Lali Bhaskaran Vs Thomas — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.1625 OF 2018(O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 445/2005 DATED 29-05-2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM

¶7

PETITIONER/S/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR/2ND DEFENDANT:

¶8

LALI BHASKARAN

¶9

AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT ULLADATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - PIN 686144

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE SMT.A.G.NISHA SRI.K.SUNIL SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481) SMT.C.V.VEENA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/DECREE HOLDER AND 3RD JUDGMENT DEBTOR/PLAINTIFFS AND 3RD DEFENDANT:

¶12

1 THOMAS AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT ULLADATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144

¶13

2 MICHEL AGED 56 YEARS AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT ULLADATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144

¶14

OP(C).No.1625 OF 2018(O)

¶15

¶16

3 LONAPPAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT ULLADATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144

¶17

4 JOSE AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT ULLADATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144

¶18

5 SUNIL BHASKARAN

¶19

AGED 40 YEARS, ULLADATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144

¶20

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶21

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(C).No.1625 OF 2018(O)

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

In this original petition, the judgment debtor challenges Ext.P6 order on the ground that permitting the decree holder to construct compound wall on either side of the pathway is against the terms of compromise.

¶27

Ext.P1 is the compromise agreement which

¶28

would show that there is a clause in the said agreement stipulating that the decree holder shall not construct compound wall on either side of the pathway. However, Ext.P6 order is not clear as to whether the construction is on the side of the pathway referred to in paragraph 2 of the compromise

¶29

OP(C).No.1625 OF 2018(O)

¶30

¶31

agreement or not. It is true that the court below had directed that there should not be any encroachment into the pathway mentioned in Item No.2 of the compromise agreement. However, the compromise specifically stipulates that there should not be any construction of compound wall on either side of the pathway. Ext.P6 order does not specifically mention about the same. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 order and direct the court

¶32

below to pass order afresh, in accordance with law, specifically mentioning about the property around which the construction is permitted, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

OP(C).No.1625 OF 2018(O)

¶34

¶35

This Original Petition stands disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

RK/15.10.2019

¶40

OP(C).No.1625 OF 2018(O)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 15TH NOVEMBER, 2008 IN O.S. NO. 445 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM

¶45

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE COMMISSION REPORT AND LATER MARKED AS EXT.C3(a)

¶46

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 445 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF;S COURT, VAIKOM DATED 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008.

¶47

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF E.P. NO. 11 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM

¶48

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE OF THE OBJECTION IN E.P. NO. 11 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM

¶49

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P. NO. 11 OF 2016 IN O.S. NO. 445 OF 2005 DATED 29TH DATE OF MAY, 2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT (EXECUTION) VAIKOM.

¶50

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

PA TO JUDGE

¶53

Lali Bhaskaran v. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lali Bhaskaran v. Thomas

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

Rejimon Vs C.v.Joychan @ Kochuvarky John

Mariyamma Varghese Vs South Indian Bank Limited

Rincy E.Varghese, Vs Abin Babu

Ajith Kumar Vs Indira

Rasheed.v.P Vs Surabhi Woods

Bini Kuriakose Vs Joseph Sebastian