Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sasidharan Pillai vs Parvathy Chandran on 2 March, 2021

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque, Kauser Edappagath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      OP (FC).No.584 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2019 IN OP 742/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,
                             CHAVARA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

             SASIDHARAN PILLAI
             AGED 65 YEARS
             S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PLAVILA PUTHEN
             VEEDU, MANAMPUZHA.P.O., KADAMBANAD SOUTH, KUNNATHOOR-
             638103.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
             SMT.BHANU THILAK

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONER:

             PARVATHY CHANDRAN,
             AGED 22 YEARS
             D/O.RAMESH CHANDRAN, GAURI VILASOM, IVARKALA WEST
             SOUTH, PUTHANAMBALAM.P.O., KUNNATHOOR-638103.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC).No.584/2019
                                      2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J This original petition was filed challenging the order in I.A.No.2451/2018 in O.P.No.742/2018 filed for lifting the attachment over the petition schedule property. The petitioner filed a claim petition which was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has come up with this original petition.

2. The above order refusing to lift attachment is an appealable order. Hence, we need not invoke our power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to upset the finding of fact.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-


                                          Dr. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

                 True copy                          JUDGE
kp                 P.A. To Judge
 O.P.(FC).No.584/2019
                                 3



                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION DATED

NIL IN O.P.NO.742/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.DATED 30.11.2018 IN I.A.2451/2018 IN O.P.NO.742/2018 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,CHAVARA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN IA.NO.2451/2018 IN O.P.NO.742/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2019 IN I.A.NO.2451/2018 IN O.P.NO.742/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.7040/1965 OF SRO ADOOR EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.