V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE v. RAMKUMAR , J
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
partition deed, this appeal is dismissed as one settled out of
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXIII r. 3
Judgment
APPELLANT: (DEFENDANTS 1, 9 AND 17 TO 20) -----------------------------------------------------
1. VELAKKATTIL DECEASED UNNIYANKUTTY'S SON MUHAMMAD, RESIDING AT MUTHUTHALA AMSOM AND DESOM OTTAPPALAM TALUK.
2. SAIDALI'S SON ABDUL NAZAR (NOW MAJOR), DO. DO.
3. SAIDALI'S WIFE MARIYA UMMA, DO. DO.
4. 1ST APPELLANT'S WIFE SULAIKHA, DO. DO.
5. CHILDREN PATHUKUTTY (NOW MAJOR) DO. DO.
6. ASHARAF (MINOR AGED 16 YEARS) BY GUARDIAN 4TH APPELLANT, DO. DO. BY ADV. MR. R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 8 & 10 TO 16) --------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATHUMMAKUTTY UMMA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. VELAKKATTIL DECEASED UNNIANKUTTY, MUTHUTHALA AMSOM AND DESOM IN OTTAPPALAM TALUK.
VELAKKATTIL DECEASED UNNIANKUTTY'S CHILDREN THITHIKUTTY UMMA.
BEEVI UMMA.
AMINA UMMA.
NABEESA UMMA.
KADEEJA UMMA. A.S. No. 18/1996 : 2 :
MARIYAKUTTY UMMA.
DECEASED UNNIANKUTTY'S SON DECEASED SAIDALI'S CHILDREN MOIDEEN
PATHUKUTTY UMMA.
SUBAIDA.
AYISSA.
SAFIYA.
KADEEJA.
SARFUNNISA (NOW MAJOR)
ASHARAF, (NOW MAJOR) ADV. MR. E.R.VENKATESWARAN FOR R1 TO R7 MR. T.C.SURESH MENON MR. M.C.JOHN FOR MR. R.SREEHARI FOR R1 TO R7 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.S. No. 18/1996 : 3 : ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 86/1996 IN A.S. NO. 18/1996 DISMISSED
Operative part
15.07.2009 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- A.S. No. 18 of 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Defendants 1, 9 and 17 to 20 in O.S. No. 141 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottapalam, challenge the preliminary decree passed by that court. Pending this appeal, the parties have settled the matter by executing a registered partition deed dated 29.04.2009. A copy of the partition deed is produced along with I.A. No. 2282 of 2009 as per which the appellants have prayed for an order recording the settlement in terms of the partition deed. Such a prayer cannot be made by the appellants alone without a joint petition in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. But, having regard to the fact that the parties claim to have settled the dispute out of court by executing a partition deed, this appeal is dismissed as one settled out of court. No costs. Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ A.S. No. 18 of 1996 ---------------------------------------- 15th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: partition deed, this appeal is dismissed as one settled out of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII r. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 15 Jul 2009. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.