The appeal was dismissed because the appellant expressly stated during arguments that they were satisfied with the trial court's judgment and decree, leading the court to withdraw the impugned order.
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 T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1942
RFA.No.757 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 467/2009 DATED 31-05-2013 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
PUTHIYONNAN REEJA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.CHATHU, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
VADUKOOT ELIZABATH RARICHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.RARICHAN, NO OCCUPATION, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT MULANGOTHARA VEEDU, NEAR PURAVAYAL L.P.SCHOOL, PADIYOOR KALLIYAD PANCHAYAT, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, PIN-670703.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA.No.757 OF 2013 2
JUDGMENT
Advocate R.Surendran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that his party is satisfied with whatever has been granted by the trial court and therefore, he does not proceed to impugn the judgment and decree in O.S.No.467 of 2009 any longer. Counsel for the appellant also submits that he may be permitted to execute the decree as it stands. His submission is recorded. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE
pm
PUTHIYONNAN REEJA
VADUKOOT ELIZABATH RARICHAN
T.V.ANILKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
