Allowed

Shahul Hameed v. Pathumma

Kerala HC12 Jun 2023FAO (RO)/11/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a remand order in AS No.81/2017. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the remand, and directed the Additional District Court to rehear it along with two other related appeals (AS Nos. 65/2017 and 90/2017) based on prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the remand order in AS No.81/2017 was set aside, and the Additional District Court was directed to rehear AS No.81/2017 along with AS Nos.65/2017 and 90/2017.

Shahul Hameed Vs Pathumma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
FAO (RO) NO. 11 OF 2023

¶3

AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31-10-2022 IN AS 81/2017
ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT- III, MANJERI.
O.S NO.68 OF 2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶4

APPELLANTS / RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 7:

¶5

1 SHAHUL , AGED 56,S/O THONIKKARA ABU (LATE) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN - 679321

¶6

2 MUHAMMED, AGED 59,S/O THONIKKARA ABU (LATE) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN - 679321

¶7

3 RASHEEDALI, AGED 54, S/O THONIKKARA ABU (LATE) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN - 679321

¶8

4 SHOUKATH, AGED 53, S/O THONIKKARA ABU (LATE) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN - 679321

¶9

5 SAKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 52, S/O THONIKKARA ABU (LATE) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN - 679321

¶10

6 HARIS BABU, AGED 46, S/O THONIKKARA ABU (LATE) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN - 679321

¶11

BY ADVS.MEENA.A, VINOD RAVINDRANATH,
K.C.KIRAN, M.R.MINI, M.DEVESH,
ASHWIN SATHYANATH, ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH,
THAREEQ ANVER K, VIDYA K &
T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)

¶12

FAO(RO) No.11 of 2023

¶13

-: 2 :-

¶14

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶15

PATHUMMA, AGED 70,
D/O KANGATT PUTHANVEETTIL MUHAMMED @
BAPPUTTI HAJI, W/O PONNANGATHODI KUNHAHAMMED,
MAKKARAPARAMBA VILLAGE, VADAKKANGARA DESOM,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679321
BY ADV K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶16

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING
BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Sathish Ninan, J. ==============================

¶18

FAO(RO) No.11 of 2023 ==========================

¶19

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

O.S No.68 of 2011, which is a suit for recovery of

¶22

possession on the strength of title and O.S No.21 of
2011, which is a suit for prohibitory injunction against
trespass, between the parties, were pending before the
Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna. The suits were disposed
of separately.

¶23

2. AS No.81 of 2017 was filed as against the decree

¶24

and judgment in O.S No.68 of 2011, and AS No.65 of 2017
and AS No.90 of 2017 were filed as against the decree
and judgment in O.S No.21 of 2011.

¶25

3.The three appeals were heard together and
disposed of as per the common judgment dated 31-10-2022.

¶26

The trial court decrees were set aside and the suits

¶27

were remanded back to the trial court for fresh

¶28

FAO(RO) No.11 of 2023

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

disposal.

¶31

4.This appeal is filed challenging the order of

¶32

remand in AS 81 of 2017.

¶33

5. The following question of law arises in the
appeal:

¶34

“When the issue involved in the connected suits and
appeals are inter-related are not the appeals to be
heard jointly?”

¶35

6. Challenging the order of remand in AS No.65 of
2017 and AS No.90 of 2017, two FAOs were preferred
before this Court as FAO(RO) No.28 of 2022 and FAO(RO)
No.29 of 2022. This Court, as per judgment dated 23-01-
2023, allowed the appeals, set aside the order of remand
and directed the first appellate court to rehear the
appeals. As noticed earlier, there are two suits and
three appeals, which are interrelated.

¶36

FAO(RO) No.11 of 2023

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

 7. In the light of the facts as noticed above, it

¶39

is only appropriate that the remand order in AS No.81 of
2017 is also set aside and heard along with AS No.65 of
2017 and AS No.90 of 2017, in terms of the directions of
this Court in FAO(RO) No.28 of 2022 and FAO (RO) No.29
of 2022.

¶40

 Therefore the appeal is allowed. The order of
remand in AS No.81 of 2017 is set aside. The Additional
District Court shall rehear AS No.81 of 2017 along with
AS No.65 of 2017 and AS No.90 of 2017 and dispose of the
same.

¶41

Parties shall appear before the Additional District
Court-III, Manjeri on 30-06-2023 at 11.00 a.m.

¶42

 Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge

¶43

amk

Shahul Hameed v. Pathumma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahul Hameed v. Pathumma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kottancherri Shaffi Vs Kadiyarakath Kunhimmachu Kutty Umma

Bank of Baroda Vs M/S.Sus High Precision Plastics Moulders

Reji Varghese Vs James

P.H. Shajahan Vs Rajeendran

M/S.Rao and Company Vs Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.

V.M.Abdhul Samad, Vs Kochu Thresia