Dismissed

Janaki Amma v. Santhamony

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022MA (EXE.)/12/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mat. Appeal (Exe.) No. 12 of 2014 was disposed of by the High Court of Kerala. The court observed that the appellant during hearing died on 24.03.2022. Concluding that the appeal abated due to her death and lack of steps to implead her legal representatives, the court closed the appeal without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is closed and dismissed as abated due to the death of the appellant without impleading her legal representatives.

Janaki Amma Vs Santhamony — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/12TH KARTHIKA,1944

¶7

MAT.APPEAL (EXE.) NO. 12 OF 2014

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2014 IN E.A.NO.84 2013 IN

¶9

E.P.NO.9 OF 2012 IN O.P.NO.910 OF 2003 OF THE FAMILY

¶10

COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶11

APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER:

¶12

JANAKI AMMA,

¶13

AGED 85 YEARS, W/O. KUTTAN NAIR, ALENCHERIL HOUSE, MELUKARA MURI, KOZHENCHERI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689641.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

¶15

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER:

¶16

1 SANTHAMONY @ SANTHA, D/O. THANKAMMA C.G., MANIVILETHU VEEDU, ARANMULA P.O., MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK.

¶17

2 SATHEESH S. PILLAI, S/O. SANTHAMONY, MANIVILETHU VEEDU, ARANMULA P.O., MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK.

¶18

3 SABITHA S.PILLAI, D/O. SANTHAMONY, MANIVILETHU VEEDU, ARANMULA P.O., MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK.

¶19

¶20

Mat.Appeal (Exe.) No.12 of 2014

¶21

4 K.S.SADASIVAN PILLAI, S/O. KUTTAPPAN NAIR, PADINIJARE ALENCHERIL, MELUKARA MURI, KOZHENCEHRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689641.

¶22

BY ADV SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶23

THIS MAT APPEAL (EXECUTION) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

Mat.Appeal (Exe.) No.12 of 2014

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Ajithkumar, J.

¶28

This is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appellant challenges the order dated 11.09.2014 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in E.A.No.84 of 2013 in E.P.No.9 of 2012 in O.P.No.910 of 2003.

¶29

This appeal was admitted on 27.10.2014. Operation of the impugned order was stayed initially for a period of six weeks. The order was later extended until further orders.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶31

The property in question, 4.5 Ares of land comprised in Sy.587/2010 of Kozhencherry Village, was attached before judgment as per the order in I.A.No.684 of 2002 in O.P.(Indigent) No.25 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, which was later refiled as O.P.No.910 of

¶32

¶33

Mat.Appeal (Exe.) No.12 of 2014

¶34

2003 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The appellant filed E.A.No.84 of 2013 claiming that she was the co-owner, and therefore the attachment of the said property is liable to be lifted. As per the order dated 11.09.2014, the Family Court found that the appellant had only a life interest in the said property and subject to the said right of the appellant, the property was liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree in O.P.No.910 of 2003. The appellant challenges correctness of the said finding.

¶35

On 21.10.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted a memo stated that the appellant expired. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on account of the death of the appellant, the appeal may be dismissed as abated.

¶36

The appellant died on 24.03.2022. But, no steps have been taken yet to implead the legal representatives of the appellant. Going by the impugned order, the deceased appellant had only a life interest in the property in question.

¶37

¶38

Mat.Appeal (Exe.) No.12 of 2014

¶39

If that is correct, on the death of the appellant, the cause of action has abated. Be that as it may be, since no steps have been taken for impleading the legal representatives of the appellant, the appeal stands abated. Recording that fact, the appeal is closed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

dkr

Janaki Amma v. Santhamony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki Amma v. Santhamony

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

Parathodika Aboobacker Vs Koulath

Sapna.P.P Vs Hareesh Kumar.a

Anjana.M.a Vs Sreejith.S

M.J.Sivakumar@Sivakumar Amruthakala Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Ganga Rajanan Vs K.P.Ranjanan

T.P. Vinod Vs P.S. Sindu