Allowed

P.P. Ibrahim v. V.P. Ibrahim

Kerala HC5 Mar 2024OP(C)/1117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff challenged an order directing him to elect between partition and rendition of accounts in a partnership/co-ownership suit. The High Court held the order ignored its earlier judgment allowing joinder of both remedies, set aside the election direction, and directed the trial court to continue trial deciding both issues together.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 order set aside; trial court directed to continue trial and dispose of suit per Ext.P2 judgment directions.

P.P. Ibrahim Vs V.P. Ibrahim — Partition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 1117 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2023 IN OS NO.93 OF 2009 OF SUB
COURT, KOYILANDY

¶6

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN O.S:

¶7

P.P. IBRAHIM
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAMMADKUTTY, MUMTHAS MAHAL, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM,
DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673305.

¶8

BY ADVS.
R.PARTHASARATHY
B.KRISHNAN
SEEMA

¶9

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS IN O.S.:

¶10

1V.P. IBRAHIM
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. AMMADKUTTY, VAYALILAKATH, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM,
DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673305.
2P.P. SADIK
W/O. MOIDEENKOYA, "SANA" HOUSE, P.O. ANDIKKOD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673317.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SRINATH GIRISH P
P.JERIL BABU(K/806/2009)

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP(C) NO. 1117 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶16

OP(C) No.1117 of 2023

¶17

Dated this the 05^th day of March, 2024

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Koyilandy, whereby the plaintiff was directed to take steps to amend the plaint so as to elect and proceed with the claim in respect of either the remedy of partition of the property or the remedy of rendition of accounts. The suit was initially filed for rendition of accounts. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint by including prayer for dissolution of the partnership and for partition of the property in which an ice plant, which was subject matter of the partnership, is being conducted. The amendment was disallowed by the trial court against which the plaintiff had filed O.P.(C) No.1912 of 2017. The above said original petition was disposed of by judgment dated 12.12.2018 (Ext.P2), whereby this Court allowed the amendment finding that the disputes between the parties essentially center around the co-ownership property on which

¶20

OP(C) NO. 1117 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

a business is stated to be conducted and that it is only appropriate that the disputes between the parties in respect of the same property, though claimed under varying rights, be decided in the same proceeding. The present order Ext.P8 has been rendered without noticing the above finding of this Court in O.P.(C) No.1912 of 2017.

¶23

The counsel for the respondents submitted that there is nothing even in the pleadings to show that the property was brought into the partnership and hence rendition of accounts and partition are two different aspects.

¶24

I do not think that the above contention can be sustained at this stage after Ext.P2 judgment, wherein this Court has categorically held that the two issues are to be considered together in the same suit. In the above circumstances, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is set aside. The trial court is directed to continue with the trial and dispose of the suit, having regard to the directions already issued in Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.(C) No.1912 of 2017.

¶25

Sd/T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶26

mpm

¶27

OP(C) NO. 1117 OF 2023

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1117/2023

¶30

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶31

`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF TH`	`E COMMON ORDER IN I.A.`
	`1480/2003` `02.06.2017`	`AND` `.`	`I.A. 79/2014 DATED`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY` `(C) 1912/2`	`OF THE` `017 DAT`	`JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.P.` `ED 12.12.2018.`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY` `93/2009.`	`OF THE`	`AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY` `BY 1ST DEF`	`OF THE` `ENDANT`	`WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED` `DATED 23.11.2009.`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE COPY` `BY 2ND` `ATTORNEY,`	`OF THE` `DEFENDA` `DATED 1`	`WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED` `NT THROUGH POWER OF` `8.01.2022.`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY` `STATEMENT` `12.06.2019`	`OF` `FILED` `.`	`THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN` `BY 1ST DEFENDANT DATED`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY` `STATEMENT` `25.11.2020`	`OF` `FILED` `.`	`THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN` `BY 2ND DEFENDANT DATED`
`Exhibit-P8`	`TRUE COPY` `SUBORDINAT` `13.3.2023.`	`OF` `E JUDGE`	`THE ORDER PASSED BY` `S COURT, KOYILANDY DATED`

P.P. Ibrahim v. V.P. Ibrahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P. Ibrahim v. V.P. Ibrahim

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

State of Kerala Vs Haridasan Nair

State of Kerala Represented by the Special Tahsildar La (Railways) Vs Karthyayani

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Manager

Devassykutty Vs the District Collector

The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Smt. Jasitha P. J.

Thomas Vs Sri. Sulfiker M