High Court Kerala High Court

Noorunisa T.P vs Kunhami on 20 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
Noorunisa T.P vs Kunhami on 20 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO No. 153 of 2007()


1. NOORUNISA T.P.,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NOUSHIBA, KUNHIPARAL BHASHEER,
3. NAMSHEED (MINOR),
4. RASHIDH  (MINOR),
5. FARIS  (MINOR),
6. FEBINA (MINOR),
7. NASEEF (MINOR),

                        Vs



1. KUNHAMI, W/O. ABU, AGED 78 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PALLOOR.

3. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK,

4. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,

5. BRANCH MANAGER,

6. BRANCH MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.PAREETH

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :20/06/2007

 O R D E R
         KURIAN JOSEPH & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

                  -----------------------------------------

                         F.A.O. No. 153 OF 2007

                -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007.




                              J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 13.04.2007

in I.A. No. 1156/2006 in O.S. No. 94/2006 on the file of

Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. As per the impugned order,

the court below appointed court receiver in respect of the plaint

schedule property.

2. The suit is one for partition. It is the main contention of

the respondents 1 to 7 that the appellants are entitled to

5/6 share of the properties and the plaintiff is entitled to only 1/6

share. It is further submitted that, of the 4 items of the property

only item No. 4 is actually owned by the deceased. Item No. 4

consists of six residential quarters. For collecting rent from the

said quarters, it is submitted that the court receiver is not

necessary. Still further it is submitted that appointment of a

court receiver would cause severe loss to the estate.

F.A.O. 153/2007 2

Having regard to the contentions raised by the parties, we

are of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

interests of the parties can be safeguarded if appellants 1 and 2

are appointed as court receivers. Appeal is hence partly allowed

modifying the order in I.A. No. 1156/2006 in O.S. No. 94/2006

on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. Instead of the

court receiver, appellants 1 and 2 are appointed as receivers in

respect of the property referred to in the order. The Sub Court

will also take steps to dispose of the suit itself, expeditiously.

KURIAN JOSEPH

JUDGE

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGE

smp