Allowed

Mathew Ulahannan( (Died) v. v.Rajmohan

Kerala HC12 Aug 2021RFA/773/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021. Accepting the receipt evidencing full and final payment of the decree amount, the Court disposed of the appeal, vacated the order of attachment, and ordered refund of court fees to the legal heirs of the deceased appellant.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.4 allowed to receive receipt in evidence and dispose appeal; I.A. No.3 allowed to lift attachment; appeal disposed on settlement; court fee refunded.

Mathew Ulahannan( (Died) Vs v.Rajmohan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 773 OF 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2008 IN OS No.222/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶8

*1 MATHEW ULAHANNAN, AGED 57 YEARS,(DIED) RESIDING AT PALATHUNKAL HOUSE, KORATTY KARA, KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED

¶10

ADDL A2 ANNAMMA MATHEW, AGED 69 YEARS, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KURUVAMOOZHY P.O., KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686518.

¶11

ADDL A3 SANTHOSH MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KURUVAMOOZHY P.O., KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686518

¶12

ADDL A4 SATHEESH MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KURUVAMOOZHY P.O., KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686518.

¶13

THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN RFA 773/2008.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J SMT.HELEN P.A.

¶16

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶17

V.RAJMOHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VASUDEVATHIL HOUSE, PZHAVATHU KARA, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

R.F.A.NO.773 of 2008 and

¶20

I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2021 2

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2021

¶23

I.A. No.4 of 2021 is an application filed under Order XLI Rule

¶24

27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A receipt has been produced as Annexure-A1 alongwith the application and the prayer in the application is to receive the same in evidence and dispose of the appeal on hand in terms of that. It is submitted that the issues have been settled among the parties and the entire amount due under the decree has been paid.

¶25

The counsel for the respondent has not turned up. A letter is placed for perusal, which has been forwarded to the registry by the respondent in person stating that he is hardly interested to pursue O.S.No.222 of 2005 on the files of Additional Sub Court, Kottayam and RFA No.773 of 2008 pending on the files of this Court, in view of the full and final settlement. He has also produced a copy of the receipt evidencing receipt of Rs.3,85,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Eighty Five Thousand only) by him in full and final settlement of the dispute in O.S.No.

¶26

R.F.A.NO.773 of 2008 and

¶27

I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2021 3

¶28

222 of 2005 on the files of Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, judgment of which is assailed in the appeal on hand. It is also recited in the receipt that the decree in O.S.No.222 of 2005 on the files of Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, is satisfied in full. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow I.A.No.4 of 2021.

¶29

I.A.No.3 of 2021 is an application seeking to lift the order of attachment pending. In view of the amicable settlement of the issues and the full and final satisfaction of the decree under challenge, this Court is inclined to allow the application.

¶30

Full and final settlement is recorded on the basis of the receipt produced and the appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement. Court fee shall be refunded to the appellants who are legal heirs of deceased original appellant. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the order of attachment stands vacated. The factum that attachment is lifted shall be communicated to the Authority concerned immediately.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

MJL

Mathew Ulahannan( (Died) v. v.Rajmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Ulahannan( (Died) v. v.Rajmohan

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

E.Rahakrishnan Vs P.S.Joseph

Padmavathi Vs Chandran

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Vs Rajenderan Nair

V.M.Mathew Vs the National Highway Authority of India

Thomas Joseph, Vs Satheesh K.C.

Sreejith P.P., Vs Chandri M.K.