Dismissed

Raveendran v. Surendran

Kerala HC7 Sept 2021FAO (RO)/4/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal against a remand order in a suit for boundary fixation with easement counterclaim. The judgment directed the trial court to dispose of the matter untrammeled by unwarranted observations in the appellate judgment and added a liberty to amend pleadings or adduce fresh evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammeled by observations in the first appellate judgment; parties granted liberty to adduce additional evidence an

Raveendran Vs Surendran — Partition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 4 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.No.45/2017 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA

¶7

O.S.No.243/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA

¶8

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶9

RAVEENDRAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/o LATE GOVINDAN, RAJ BHAVANAM, KARAZHMA MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.R.SUNIL KUMAR

¶11

SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶13

1 SURENDRAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/o LATE GOVINDAN, PUTHENKULANGARA VALIYAKIZHAKKATHIL, KARAZHMA MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE-690 105

¶14

2 LEELAMMA, AGED 64, D/o LATE KALYANI, PUTHENKULANGARA VALIYAKIZHAKKATHIL, KARAZHMA MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE-690 105

¶15

3 SASIDHARAN, AGED 50, S/o LATE GOVINDAN, PUTHENKULANGARA VALIYAKIZHAKKATHIL, KARAZHMA MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE – 690 105

¶16

R1-R3 BY ADV SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)

¶17

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

F.A.O. (RO) No.4 of 2019

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The judgment of remand by the first appellate court is under challenge. It is pertaining to a suit for fixation of boundary, wherein a counter claim was raised by way of easement by grant based on an earlier deed. The counter claim was decreed. In the appellate stage, permission was granted to amend the counter claim schedule and remanded the matter back to the trial court, against which the counter claim defendant, who is the original plaintiff, came up.

¶22

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that there are some unwarranted observations made by the first appellate court and it will cause prejudice in the determination of dispute involved in the suit. Hence, sought a direction to the trial court to dispose of the matter untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the first appellate judgment. It was not objected by the learned counsel for

¶23

F.A.O. (RO) No.4 of 2019 3

¶24

the respondents. As such, the appeal is hereby dismissed

¶25

with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the first appellate judgment. Since there is a subsequent amendment to the schedule, the parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence and to raise additional pleadings, if any, before the trial court. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶28

DMR/-

Raveendran v. Surendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. Surendran

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

K.M.Suresh Babu, Vs Chalil Kunhikrishna Kurup

Narayanan Vs Parvathy

Kallarakettil Basheer Vs Jerardh

The Managing Director Vs Reji

Thankamani Vs Vijayadharan

Shaji Jose Vs Raju