Disposed

Najkabi v. Puthan Peediakakkal Muhammedali Haji

Kerala HC15 Mar 2021RFA/511/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala allowed two inter-connected applications in a Regular First Appeal. The court accepted a settlement agreement executed by all parties to resolve the underlying O.S. No.437 of 2007. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the agreement.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos.1 and 2 allowed; appeal disposed of in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Najkabi Vs Puthan Peediakakkal Muhammedali Haji — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

RFA.No.511 OF 2016(B) (INDIGENT)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS No.437/2007 DATED 13-08-2015 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANTS 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 NAJKABI SHIHABUDHEEN, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED SHIHABUDHEEN, BAVA MANZIL, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶9

2 ALTHAF SHIHABUDHEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED SHIHABUDHEEN, BAVA MANZIL, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶10

3 FIROZ SHIHABUDHEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED SHIHABUDHEEN, BAVA MANZIL, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶12

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND 4TH DEFENDANT:

¶13

1 PUTHAN PEEDIAKAKKAL MUHAMMEDALI HAJI, S/O.PUTHEN PEEDIKAKKAL IBRAHIM, AGED 58 YEARS,CHERUKAVU AMSOM, DESOM, CHERUKAVU VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AND HAVING BUSINESS AT JIDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS,NELLIKKATHODY HOUSE, MATHUVALLUR VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676503.

¶14

RFA.No.511/2016(B) 2

¶15

2 MUHAMMED SHIHABUDHEEN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NALAKATH BAVA HAJI,BAVA MANZIL, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK., 673303.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.S.NITHIN ANCHAL SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

¶17

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RFA.No.511/2016(B) 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2021

¶21

The parties to the appeal settled the issues involved in O.S No.437 of 2007 out of court and the terms of settlement have been entered into an agreement executed by them. I.A No.01/2021 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to accept the agreement and to pass appropriate orders in the Appeal. The original agreement is produced alongwith the application as Annexure-A. I.A No.02/2021 is filed seeking to accept Annexure-A. All parties to the appeal affixed their signatures in Annexure-A. It is submitted by the counsel holding vakalath for the appellants that though a registered notice was sent, it was returned unserved and therefore he has no information about settlement of issues. All parties to the appeal are present. Their address found in the appeal memorandum was verified with the Aadhar Card and Voters I.D Card. Though some differences were noticed in the address found in the Aadhar card and address

¶22

RFA.No.511/2016(B) 4

¶23

shown in the appeal memorandum, the address in the appeal memorandum and Voters ID Card are same.

¶24

In that result, I.A No.1/2021 and I.A No.02/2021 are

¶25

allowed. R.F.A stands disposed of in terms of Annexure-A agreement, which shall also form part of this judgment.

¶26

Since the appeal was filed as indigent, appellants are bound to pay half of the court fee. If not paid within three weeks from the date of this order, steps shall be initiated for realising the same from the appellants.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

Najkabi v. Puthan Peediakakkal Muhammedali Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najkabi v. Puthan Peediakakkal Muhammedali Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Rajeevan Vs Thalayantakath Musthafa

Deepa Vs State of Kerala

Harsha Kumar Vs Sree Guhanandapuram Devasom

Sushama Narayanan Namboothiri Vs Abraham Kurian

Radhakrishnan T. Vs C. Manikandan

K.C.Joseph Vs Federal Bank Ltd.