Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Documents citing C.Prasannakumari vs C.Sudhakaran on 22 December, 2005

Radhamani vs Taluk Legal Services Committee on 1 August, 2023

6. The award was passed as early as on 2014 and that soon after the award was passed, a suit was filed by the husband of the petitioner as OS No. W.P.(C).No.7587 of 2022 9 529 of 2014 seeking for a decree of perpetual injunction and only when no order of injunction was granted earlier Writ Petition No.34199 of 2014 was filed which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 2.3.2022 permitting withdrawal of the writ petition leaving open all contentions of the parties. The 2nd respondent, to execute the terms of the decree, has filed an execution petition as EP No.139 of 2013 before the Munsiff's Court, Chittur, which is now pending consideration. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Prasannakumari v. Sudhakaran (2012 (1) KLT 701) wherein this Court while considering a case, where an ex parte decree was passed for fixation of boundary, but no survey commission was taken out at the time of trial since the decree was passed ex parte held that a commissioner could be appointed at the execution stage to identify the plaint schedule property and rejection of the application for appointment of the commissioner on the ground that the plaintiff will have taken out W.P.(C).No.7587 of 2022 10 a survey commission at trial was found to be wrong. As stated above, going through Ext.P2 award the terms of the settlement is clear and executable and the contention of the petitioner in this regard is only to be rejected.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vilasini Amma vs Parukutty Amma

4. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner has obtained a decree for putting up a boundary structure on the western side of her property. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the decree is not executable, as the same was passed on the basis of a resurvey plan which has not become final. But, as the decree obtained by the petitioner has attained finality, there is no reason why the same shall not be executed. As the decree is for constructing a boundary structure on the western boundary of the petitioner's property separating the property of the respondent, it is quite necessary to have the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the boundary with the help of a plan where the proposed boundary structure has to be put up. See Prasannakumari C. v. C. Sudhakaran and Another (2012 (1) KHC 594) where it was held that if the decree can be executed by fixing the boundary after ascertaining the same as per a survey commission, the execution court is bound to execute the decree after following such a procedure.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A V Pillai - Full Document
1