IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA No. 1072 of 2004()
1. KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. H.WILLIAMS, ATTINGAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. ANANTHAN, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
4. USHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE KAMALAKSHAN,
5. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAGHAVAN
For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.M.PAREED PILLAY(RETD.CHIEF JUSTICE)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR (RETD.JUDGE)
Dated :06/03/2007
O R D E R
M.M.PAREED PILLAY (RETD. CHIEF JUSTICE)
&
M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR (RETD.JUDGE)
---------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1072 OF 2004
--------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2007
A W A R D
Heard counsel appearing for both sides. Appellant and 3rd
respondent present. The parties have settled the dispute on
condition that the 3rd respondent will pay an additional amount
of Rs.22,000/- (Rs. Twenty two thousand only) to the appellant,
within two months from today, failing which the amount will
carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
default till payment.
The appeal is settled as above.
M.M.PAREED PILLAY
(RETD. CHIEF JUSTICE)
M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR
(RETD.JUDGE)
ps
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C) No. 3885 of 2007(K)
#1. KUNJAMMA, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. ELAMMA, W/O. VARGHESE,
... Respondent
2. YACOB,
3. ELDHO P.Y., S/O. YACOB,
4. VARGHESE P.Y.,S/O.YACOB,
5. RAJU P.Y., S/O. YACOB,
6. ELDOSE, S/O. LATE ISSAC,
7. JOSEPH, S/O. LATE ISSAC,
8. JOY, S/O. VARKEY,
! For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.DINESH
^ For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
% Dated :05/03/2007
: O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
W.P.(C)NO.3885 OF 2007
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 5th day of March 2007
JUDGMENT
Adv. Sri.P.N. Ramakrishnan Nair appears for respondents 1 to
5 and Adv. Sri. Abraham appears for respondents 6 and 7. 8th
respondent is reported to be out of India but it is submitted that he
is the assignee of the original first defendant/Issac who is the
husband of the petitioner and father of respondents 6 and 7. Yet 8th
respondent was not contesting either in the first appeal or in the
final decree proceedings. Hence, notice to 8th respondent is
dispensed with.
2. This writ petition is filed by the additional 5th defendant in
O.S.82/2000 pending on the file of Additional Sub Court, North
Paravur. The prayers in the writ petition are to quash the order
issuing commission to effect division of the properties by metes and
bounds in the final decree proceedings vide order on I.A.3769/04 or
in the alternative to give effect to the said order after disposal of the
application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by counsel for the
petitioner that final arguments in Ext.P3 were heard by the court
below and that Ext.P3 is taken for orders. Counsel for respondents
1 to 5 contends that there is no meaning in awaiting for final orders
W.P.(C)NO.3885 OF 2007
2
on Ext.P3 application and the said order attaining finality and that
respondents 1 to 5 are prepared to take the risk if at all Ext.P3 is
finally allowed and shares will have to be reallotted by issuing
commission afresh consequent on orders passed on Ext.P3. He
further submits that no injury at all is to be caused to the petitioner
even in case the commission goes and inspects the property and
assesses the details so as to enable the court to pass a final decree
in terms of the preliminary decree as it now stands. It is also seen
from Ext.R4 order of this court that this court had on an earlier
occasion directed the Sub Court, North Paravur to issue sufficient
directions to the Commissioner to expedite the work and submit
report and to dispose of the final decree application thereafter
considering the objections raised and to dispose of the final decree
application as expeditiously as possible.
3. In the circumstances, the request of the petitioner to
withhold execution of commission order till Ext.P3 is disposed of
finally is not tenable.
This writ petition in the circumstances is dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
jes