Allowed

Babukutty T.George v. Lily George @ Lily Abraham Mathew

Kerala HC16 Nov 2023Tr.P(C)/605/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Transfer Petition seeking to withdraw the first appeal arising from a District Court suit to this Court. The petition aimed to club this appeal with another pending appeal pending before this Court originating from a common judgment. The court ordered the withdrawal and transmission of records, noting that incomplete service to one respondent did not impede disposal.

What did the court decide?

Allowed, A.S. No.21/2022 withdrawn to this Court to be clubbed with RFA No.129/2022; District Court to transmit records.

Babukutty T.George Vs Lily George @ Lily Abraham Mathew — Partition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

TR.P(C) NO.605 OF 2023

¶6

FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF A.S. NO.21/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BABUKUTTY T.GEORGE, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, THOMPIL VEEDU, AZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶9

BY ADVS. K.B.PRADEEP HARISANKAR R

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 LILY GEORGE @ LILY ABRAHAM MATHEW, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. ABRAHAM MATHEW, THANNIMOOTTIL, AZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶12

2 RACHEL MATHEW @ SALLY Y., AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE GEORGE MATHEW, THOMPIL VEEDU, AZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶13

3 SAMSON MATHEWS GEORGE @ SANAL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE MATHEW, THOMPIL VEEDU, AZHOORMURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶14

4 SANCY SARA MATHEWS, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE MATHEW, THOMPIL VEEDU, AZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶15

-2-

¶16

TR.P(C) NO.605 OF 2023

¶17

5 SOPHIYA ELISSA MATHEW, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE MATHEW, THOMPIL VEEDU, AZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶18

6 LEELA B. DANIEL, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. BABU DANIEL, VADAKKETHIL, NEAR VALIYAPALLY, CHANDANAPALLY, ANGADICAL VILLAGE, PIN-689 648.

¶19

7 GEORGE THOMAS @ KOCHUMON, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI GEORGE, THOMPIL VEEDU, AZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 645.

¶20

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-3-

¶22

TR.P(C) NO.605 OF 2023

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2023

¶25

Petitioner herein is the 1^st appellant in A.S.No.21/2022 of the District Court,

¶26

Pathanamthitta. He seeks transfer of the said appeal suit to the High Court, for the reason that another appeal, bearing RFA No.129/2022, arising

¶27

from the common judgment is pending consideration of this Court.

¶28

Respondents 1 to 5 have already been served. The 7^th respondent is also deemed to be served, since the notice issued by this Court has

¶29

been returned 'unclaimed'. Service to the 6^th respondent is not complete. However, the 6^th respondent is only one among the appellants in the appeal, which is sought to be transferred, wherefore, non-completion of the service to the

¶30

said respondent need not stand in the way of disposal of this Original Petition.

¶31

-4-

¶32

TR.P(C) NO.605 OF 2023

¶33

Learned counsel pointed out that a common judgment was delivered in two suits bearing O.S.No.167/2013 and O.S. No.84/2012, the former for injunction simplicitor and later, for

¶34

partition and other reliefs. As against grant of injunction, the defendants in the suit preferred

¶35

an appeal before the District Court,

¶36

Pathanamthitta as A.S. No.21/2022.

¶37

Aggrieved by the preliminary decree

¶38

passed in O.S.No.84/2012, the defendants preferred an appeal before this Court as RFA No.129/2022. According to the learned counsel, the facts, as well as the issues involved in the two suits, are intertwined and requires a conjoint consideration.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this Original Petition is allowed and A.S. No.21/2022 pending before the District Court, Pathanamthitta is withdrawn to this Court, to be clubbed and

¶40

considered along with RFA No.129/2022. The District Court, Pathanamthitta shall transmit the

¶41

-5-

¶42

TR.P(C) NO.605 OF 2023

¶43

entire records in A.S. No.21/2022 to this Court

¶44

forthwith.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶47

bpr

¶48

-6-

¶49

TR.P(C) NO.605 OF 2023

¶50

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 605/2023

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT P1

¶53

TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN A.S. NO. 21 OF 2022 IN THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Babukutty T.George v. Lily George @ Lily Abraham Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babukutty T.George v. Lily George @ Lily Abraham Mathew

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

Sujith Vs Vinayasobhini

Perumudiveetil Manoharan Vs Jamuna Satyapradeep

K.K Sasi@ Sasinath Vs M/S Maniamkot Advertising India Private Limited

Shajahan Vs Rukya Beevi

Mr. Retheesh Kumar K Vs Mrs. Sandhya K. S

Mr. Retheesh Kumar K Vs Mrs. Sandhya K. S