Kerala High Court
Moodandiyil Kelu vs Moodandiyil Kelu on 25 February, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936
RSA.No. 1357 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO. 70/2007 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA
DATED 25-02-2010
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 83/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT,
NADAPURAM DATED 13-11-2003
APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT/2ND DEFENDANT:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOODANDIYIL KELU,
S/O.KUNHIEKKAN, AGED 68 YEARS, MOODANDIYIL HOUSE
EDACHERI NORTH, (VIA) EDACHERI, VATAKARA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
SRI.JAYANANDAN M. P.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 16/PLAINTIFFS 1 AND 3 TO 10 & LRS OF 2ND
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 & 3:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. KUNHIPARAMBATH MADHAVI
D/O.KUNHIEKKAN, AGED 62 YEARS, SWASTHAM
IYYANKODE AMSOM, VISHNUMANGALAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 673101.
2. NEELIYULLATHIL DEVU, @ DEVI,
D/O.KUNHIEKKAN, AGED 53 YEARS, SWASTHAM
PALERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 673305.
3. AALAKKUNNUMMAL LEELA,
D/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, SWASTHAM
PALERI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KERALA STATE-673305.
4. OORUVANTAVIDA SANTHA
D/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SWASTHAM
PONMERI AMSOM, PARAMBIL DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-673101.
5. NIRAYILATTUTHAZHE KUNIYIL SADANANDAN
S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
NARIPATTA AMSOM, THINNOOR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK
KERALA STATE- 673101.
6. KUNIYIL CHANDRI,
D/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 43 YEARS, SWASTHAM
KUNNUMMAL AMSOM, MOKERI DESOM, VAT AKARA TALUK
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-673101.
RSA NO.1357/2011 2
7. NIRAYILATTU THAZHE KUNIYIL BABU
S/O.KELAPPAN, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 41 YEARS
KIDANHI, NARIPATTA AMSOM, THINNOOR DESOM
VATAKARA TALUK, KERALA STATE-673101.
8. NADUKKOTHTHAZHE KUNIYIL SREEJA,
D/O.KELAPPAN, SWASTHAM, AGED 40 YEARS
KIDANHI, THALASSERI TALUK, KANNUR TALUK
KANNUR DISTRICT,KERALA STATE- 670101.
9. NIRAYILATTU TAZHE KUNIYIL SURENDRAN
S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED S/O.KELAPPAN AGED 34 YEARS
NARIPATTA AMSOM, THINNOOR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK
KERALA STATE-673101.
10. MOODANDIYIL BALAN.
S/O.KUNHIEKKAN, AGED 77 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
MOODANDIYIL HOUSE, EDACHERI NORTH, (VIA)
EDACHERI, VATAKARA TALUK-673101.
11. MOODANDIYIL RAJAN,
S/O.KUNHIEKKAN, AGED 60 YEARS, EDACHERI AMSOM DESOM
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-673101.
12. USHA,
D/O.RAMATH MEETHAL JANU, AGED 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT PUTHUPOYIL THAZHE KUNIYIL, POST VALLIAD,
VIA.AYANCHERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KERALA STATE-673101.
13. PUSHPA,
D/O.JANU, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMATH MEETHAL
VELLOOR AMSOM, KODANCHERY DESOM, P.O. KODANCHERI,
VIA. PURAMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KERALASTATE-673101.
14. DINESHAN,
S/O.JANU, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMATH MEETHAL
VELLOOR AMSOM, KODANCHERY DESOM, P.O.KODANCHERY
VIA, PURAMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KERALASTATE-673101.
15. ANEESH
S/O.JANU, AGED 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAMATH MEETHAL VELLOOR AMSOM
KODANCHERY DESOM, P.O.KODANCHERI,
VIA. PURAMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KERALA STATE-673101.
R1,R2,R12 to R15 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP
R1,R2,R12 TO R 15 BY ADV. SRI.JOJI THOMAS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO.1357/2011
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
//TRUE COPY//
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
R.S.A. No.1357 of 2011
&
C.M.Appln. No.1222 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015
JUDGMENT
As per order dated 13.12.2014 in C.M.Appln.No.1222 of 2011 the appellant was directed to pay cost of `5,000/- to the learned counsel named in the order. So far cost is not paid in spite of availing various opportunities. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in spite of contacting the party, no instruction is received from the client. Hence the C.M.Application is dismissed for default. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks