Allowed

Chaladan Narayanan v. Chaladan Rohini

Kerala HC6 Dec 2023RSA/1268/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal regarding a suit for injunction over property, the respondent (mother) filed an affidavit relinquishing her entire claim to the subject property in favour of the deceased appellant's legal heirs. The court held that nothing remained to be adjudicated and set aside the lower decree.

What did the court decide?

The impugned decree and judgment of the Appellate Court are set aside and the 1st Respondent is directed to allot the property to the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd Defendant.

Chaladan Narayanan Vs Chaladan Rohini — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

RSA NO. 1268 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2019 IN A.S.NO.93/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY AROSE FROM THE DECREE AND
JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2013 IN O.S.NO.238/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF’S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.2:

¶8

1 CHALADAN NARAYANAN

¶9

S/O.LATE UNNI, AGED 52 YEARS, KEEZHALURAMSOM,
ELAMPARADESOM, POST ELAMPARA, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR-670 595. (DIED LRS IMPLEADED AND RECORDED)

¶10

2SREEJA K.V
W/O CHALADAN NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI, AYYALLOOR,
EDAVELIKKAL P.O. KOLERI, KANNUR - 670702

¶11

3 ADARSH NARAYANAN S/O CHALADAN NARAYANAN, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI, AYYALLOOR, EDAVELIKKAL P.O. KOLERI, KANNUR - 370702

¶12

4 RITHIYA NARAYANAN D/O CHALADAN NARAYANAN, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI, AYYALLOOR, EDAVELIKKAL P.O. KOLERI, KANNUR – 370702

¶13

(THE LRS OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS
SUPPLEMENTAL A2 TO A4 AS PER ORDER DATED 22.11.2022 IN
I.A.NO.1/2022)
(RESPONDENT NO.1 IS RECORDED AS THE LR OF DECEASED SOLE
APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 22.11.2022 IN
I.A.NO.1/2022)

¶14

BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.

¶15

R.S.A. No. 1268 of 2019

¶16

¶17

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 1ST RESPONDENT, PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT NO.1:

¶18

1 CHALADAN ROHINI W/O.LATE UNNI, AGED 68 YEARS, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, ELAMPARA DESOM, POST ELAMPARA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR-670 595.

¶19

2 KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KINFRA), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUILDING NO.T.C.31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶20

BY ADVS.
SRI.CIBI THOMAS - R1
SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN - SC, KINFRA -R2
SR GP K .DENNY DEVASSY -R2

¶21

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON
06.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

R.S.A. No. 1268 of 2019

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2023

¶26

This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.93 of 2013 dated 29.07.2019 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery arose from decree and judgment in O.S. No.238 of 2011 dated 25.09.2013 on the files of the Court of the Munsiff, Kuthuparamba.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

In this matter, the appellant is Chaladan Narayanan and the 1^st respondent is Chaladan Rohini, the mother of the appellant. The appellant died and his legal heirs got impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4, who are proceeding with this appeal.

¶29

Originally, the suit O.S. No.238/2011 for

¶30

R.S.A. No. 1268 of 2019

¶31

¶32

injunction was filed by Chaladan Rohini as the plaintiff arraying Chaladan Narayanan as the 2^nd defendant. The 1^st defendant is the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA). The plaintiff sought for an injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from giving the property in favour of the 2^nd defendant pursuant to acquisition of the property owned by Chaladan Narayanan, where Chaladan Rohini preserved right of life interest.

¶33

The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. Challenging the verdict of the trial court, appeal was filed before the Appellate Court as A.S. No.93/2013. The learned Appellate Judge allowed the appeal and granted prohibitory injunction.

¶34

As I have already pointed out, during the pendency of this regular second appeal, Chaladan Narayanan died. Now, the mother, Chaladan Rohini filed an affidavit before this Court dated 02.12.2023, affirming as under:

¶35

I, Chaladan Rohini, W/o.Late Unni, aged 72 years, Keezhallur Amsom, Elampara.P.O,

¶36

R.S.A. No. 1268 of 2019

¶37

¶38

Kannur-670595, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

¶39

I am the 1^st respondent in the above Second Appeal and I know the facts of the case. When the matter came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court on 27.11.2023, this Hon'ble Court directed me to file an affidavit expressing my present stand in the case on the basis of the subsequent developments. Therefore I am swearing this affidavit as directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶40

The above Second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree in AS.No. 93/2023 of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thalassery restraining the 1^st defendant by a permanent prohibitory injunction from executing any deed of transfer in respect of 10 cents of land vide G.O.(MS) No.07/2008/Transport, dated 01.02.2008 (ExtA2), solely in favour of the 2^nd defendant, excluding the plaintiff. Pending Second appeal the 2^nd defendant, my son, expired. His legal heirs are now conducting the case. In view of the fact that my son left this world, I am no longer interested in proceeding with the case further against his

¶41

R.S.A. No. 1268 of 2019

¶42

¶43

legal heirs. I am relinquishing my entire claim in respect of the subject matter of the suit. I have no objection in allotting the property to the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd defendant. It is therefore prayed that a judgment and decree may be passed in this Second Appeal on the basis of my relinquishment over the claim.

¶44

The learned counsel for Chaladan Rohini submitted that, the number of the appeal is wrongly shown as A.S. No.93/2023 instead of A.S. No.93/2013 in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit and the same is a mistake. This submission recorded.

¶45

On perusal of the affidavit, Chaladan Rohini averred that she has no objection in allotting the property to the legal heirs of the 2^nd defendant, Chaladan Narayanan.

¶46

In view of filing of the affidavit, nothing survives to be adjudicated in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the decree and judgment of the Appellate Court impugned herein stand set aside directing the 1^st

¶47

R.S.A. No. 1268 of 2019

¶48

¶49

defendant to allot the property offered to the 2^nd defendant in favour of the legal heirs of the 2^nd defendant, Chaladan Narayanan, who are additional appellants 2 to 4 herein, as per law.

¶50

Accordingly, this regular second appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶53

Chaladan Narayanan v. Chaladan Rohini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaladan Narayanan v. Chaladan Rohini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santha Vs Shajan

M.M.Thomas Vs Nasreena

M. M. Thomas Vs Minu Mumtaz

Bharathan Vs Ramaswamy

A.M. Aboobacker Vs Sumathi

Chaladan Narayanan Vs Kerala State Industrial Infrastructure