(JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) v. P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This settlement is recorded and the appeals are disposed of as settled
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. MATHEW, S/o. GEORGE, AGED 22 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SMT.JEENA JOSEPH ADV.G.D.PANICKER RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT: ------------------------------ JOHN @ SHIBU, S/o. GEORGE,AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADUVILA PAINADATHU HOUSE, KARUKUTTYKARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA…
Judgment
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH (JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 AS.No. 540 of 1994() -------------------- OS.199/1990 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS-PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------
SCARIA, S/o. VARKEY, AGED 27, ARACKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. VARKEY, S/o. MATHAI,AGED 45, ARACKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ROSAMMA, D/o. VARKEY,AGED 29 YEARS, KOLIKKOLAVIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THRESSIAMMA, W/o. VARKEY,AGED 55 YEARS, AIKKARAYIL HOUSE, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. JOSEPH, S/o. THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, ERUMELIKARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. VARGHESE, S/o. THOMAS,AGED 38 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. MATHAI, S/o. THOMAS, AGED 68 YEARS, ARACKAL AIKARAYIL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ALEYKUTTY, W/o.MATHAI, AGED 40 YEARS, AYATHUMATTATHIL, EDAKKUNNAM KARA, MUNDAKKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ALEYAMMA, W/o. MATHAI,AGED 63 YEARS, AIKKARAYIL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. A.S.No.540/1994 2
CHINNAMMA, W/o. VARKEY, AGED 63 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE,ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
Operative part
MATHEW, S/o. GEORGE, AGED 22 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SMT.JEENA JOSEPH ADV.G.D.PANICKER RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT: ------------------------------ JOHN @ SHIBU, S/o. GEORGE,AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADUVILA PAINADATHU HOUSE, KARUKUTTYKARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.SREEKUMAR SMT.SREEDEVI THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR DETERMINATION AT THE LOK ADALAT ON 09/01/2009, ALONG WITH A.S.No.539/1994, AND THE PARTIES HAVING SETTLED THE MATTER, THE FOLLOWING AWARD IS PASSED IN TERMS OF SETTLEMENT: A.S.No.540/1994 3 C.M.P.No.3425/1994 IN A.S.No.540/1994 CLOSED. Sd/- V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR (RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) Sd/- KURIAN JOSEPH (JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) 09/01/2009 TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) & SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI (RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE) ============================== A.S.Nos.539 & 540 of 1994 ============================== Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 AWARD Today counsel for the appellants in both the cases reported that towards full and final settlement of the dispute in the suits the appellants paid Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) apart from another Rs.50,000/- paid on the last posting date ie. on 10.08.2009. Thus the parties have settled the dispute involved in both the appeals by payment of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) to the respondent. This settlement is recorded and the appeals are disposed of as settled. The court fee paid in these appeals shall be refunded as per rules. P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI (RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This settlement is recorded and the appeals are disposed of as settled
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 09 Jan 2009. The bench was V BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, KURIAN JOSEPH.
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.