Dismissed
Padmavathi v. Chandran
Kerala HCRFA/342/2013
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants filed a statement recording submissions that the partition of the decree schedule property by a Partition Deed made it unnecessary to proceed with the appeal.
What did the court decide?
The first appeal was dismissed.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
¶2
PRESENT
¶3
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
¶4
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1943
¶5
RFA NO. 342 OF 2013
¶6
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2012 IN OS
¶7
NO.970 OF 2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR
¶8
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:-
¶9
- 1 PADMAVATHI, AGED 78,
¶10
- D/O.PANIKKASSERY EDAKKAD NARAYANAN AND
¶11
- W/O.PUTHUPPALLY VEETTIL LATE SANKARA NARAYANAN, PORATHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN CODE-680 641.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
PADMAVATHI
- appellant
BHANUMATHY
- appellant
THANKAM
- appellant
VINODINI
- appellant
LAITHA
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court