SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 59104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOSE K. VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
K.K.MATHEW – Respondent
Ex.FA 3/2018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943 EX.FA NO. 3 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 56/2007 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

JOSE K. VARGHESE AGED 62 YEARS S/O.PHILIPOSE, KILIYIETHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM P.O., CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

BY ADVS.

SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA SRI.K.M.FAISAL KALAMASSERY SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.RAHUL ROY SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

1 K.K.MATHEW AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.KOSHY, KOCHALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.CNRA-18, CHEMPAKASSERY NAGAR, PATTAM P.O., ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

2 G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA PANICKER, KOICKAL KALATHIL, MEENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR P.O., PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690508.

(DIED)

3 ASHRAFF PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KRISHNAPURAM, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690525.

ADDL.R4 CHANDRIKA, AGED 70 YEARS W/O.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, KOICKAL KALATHIL, MENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR.P.O., PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPUZHA - 690508.

ADDL.R5 ARUN GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, KOICKAL KALATHIL, MENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR.PO., PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPUZHA -

690508.

ADDL.R6 ANJANA RAJESH, AGED 43 YEARS AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, KOICKAL KALATHIL, MENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR.P.O., PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPUZHA- 690508.

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 09/09/2021 IN I.A.2443/2018 IN EX.FA 3/2018.

R1 BY ADV.SRI.V.C.JAMES R3 BY ADV.SMT.J.HARIPRIYA R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.B.PRADEEP ADDL.R4 TO R6 BY ADV.SRI.B.MOHANLAL THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, ALONG WITH Ex.FA.26/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943 EX.FA NO. 26 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 56/2007 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

JOSE K.VARGHESE AGED 68 YEARS S/O.PHILIPOSE,KILIYIETHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM.P.O,CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

BY ADVS.

BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.VAISAKHI V.

SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ SHRI.UNAIS K.P.

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

1 K.K.MATHEW, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.KOSHY,KOCHALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.CNRA-18,CHEMPAKASSERY NAGAR, PATTAM.P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

2 G.CHANDRIKA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOICKAL KALATHIL,MEENAMPALLY MURI,PATHIYOOR.P.O, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690508.

3 ARUN GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE G.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, KOICKAL KALATHIL,MEENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR.P.O,PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELLIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690508.

4 ANJANA RAJESH, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.LATE G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, OICKAL KALATHIL,MEENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR.P.O,PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELLIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690508.

5 ASHRAFF, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KRISHNAPURAM, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-690525.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES R2 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.B.MOHANLAL THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, ALONG WITH Ex.FA.3/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

A money decree against one G.Gopalakrishna Pillai sought to be executed against his widow and children and also against a stranger, the claimant under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. (Order XXXVIII Rule 8). The suit was instituted for recovery of money almost four years after the sale deed in favour of the claimant executed by the defendant (sale deed No.63/2003 dated 7.1.2003) and after the passing of the decree, the said property sought to be proceeded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top