Dismissed
Sukumaran v. Kalliani
Kerala HCSA/596/1999
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940
SA.No. 596 of 1999
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04-02-1999 IN AS 42/1993 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25-11-1992 IN OS 470/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT/3RD PLAINTIFF:
SUKUMARAN,PULAPPATTA AMSOM, UMMANEZHI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.DILEEP SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/1ST APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS NO.1,2 AND 4 TO 18 IN AS NO.42/93/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 12 IN OS.470/90
SA.No. 596 of 1999 2
THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 2ND REPONDENT ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY, AND NO IMPLEADING IS NEEDED, AS PER ORDER DATED 20/3/2013 IN MEMO BEARING CF NO.1167/13
ADDL.RESPONDENTS
27 SREELATHA, C/O PRABHA MANIKANDAN PANIKKAR, SULTHANBATHERY PO, WAYANAD.
*** THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 6TH RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 24 TO 27 AS PER ORDER DATED 04/12/2014 IN I.A.528/2013**
R19,21,22 BY ADV.SMT.N.LEKHA KUMARI
R1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH R5,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,24,25,27 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SA.No. 596 of 1999 3
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that earlier the parties have entered into a compromise but some of the parties have not taken care to sign on the document. It is also submitted that, there are altogether 27 persons. It is also fairly submitted that, in the said circumstance, it is not at all necessary to proceed with the appeal. The submission is recorded. The appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Sukumaran, Pulappatta Amsom, Ummanezhi Desom, Ottapalam Taluk.
Kalliani Panikkathiar
Madhavi Panikkathiar
P.Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court