Dismissed

Ramakrishnan v. Khadeeja

Kerala HC9 Feb 2022FAO/17/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against interim attachment in limine. The court held that the mere absence of a valuation certificate at this stage was insufficient to refuse admission of the appeal, provided such certificate might be produced later.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed in limine without prejudice to the appellants' right to produce the valuation certificate before the trial court at a proper stage.

Ramakrishnan Vs Khadeeja — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

FAO NO. 17 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2021 IN IA No.1277/2021 IN OS

¶7

No.139/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1 RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/o ETTAN, CHENNAMPURA HOUSE, KAMBA DESOM, KINAVALLUR POST, PARLI II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN 678612

¶10

2 RAMESH K.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/o RAMAKRISHNAN, CHENNAMPURA HOUSE, KAMBA DESOM, KINAVALLUR POST, PARLI II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-678612

¶11

BY ADV R.SREEHARI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONES/PLAINTIFFS:

¶13

1 KHADEEJA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/o LATE MOIDEENKUTTY, KARUKULAMVEEDU, CHALAVARA DESOM, CHALAVARA VILLAGE AND POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679505

¶14

2 NOORJAHAN K., AGED 39 YEARS, D/o LATE MOIDEENKUTTY, RESIDING AT PURPLE-4, JAYARAJ SPECTRUM FLAT, VADAKKODE POST, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 021.

¶15

3 SHOWKKATHALI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/o LATE MOIDEENKUTTY, KARUKULAMVEEDU, CHALAVARA DESOM, CHALAVARA VILLAGE AND POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -679 505.

¶16

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

FAO No.17 of 2022

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order of attachment at the trial stage under Order 38 CPC, the defendants came up on two grounds, firstly that there is no fair chance of decreeing the suit since it is pertaining to a contingent contract, secondly that one of the items of property is sufficient to meet the requirement of a decree that may be passed in the suit. Regarding the first ground, what has to be satisfied is the existence of a debatable case, for which a detailed enquiry at this stage is not required. Only a prima facie satisfaction of existence of a debatable case is required. Regarding the second ground, admittedly no valuation certificate was produced regarding the properties under attachment. In the event of production of valuation certificate, if it is found that one of the properties is sufficient to meet the requirement, the appellant will get a chance to agitate the same at any proper stage. Hence, there is no ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is

¶21

FAO No.17 of 2022 3

¶22

dismissed in limine without prejudice to the right of appellants to produce the valuation certificate from a

¶23

competent authority before the trial court.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Ramakrishnan v. Khadeeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. Khadeeja

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

Devaki Vs Anandavally

Elikutty and Another Vs Fr. Aharon and Another

Chalikandi Peedikayil Kunhamina Vs K.R.Kunhimmayan

Mary Dayil Vs Jayaprakash

Benny Vs Beneesh

K.J. Thomas Vs Sree Pulpally Dewaswam