Kuttihassan vs K.A. Najeeb
2021 Latest Caselaw 20696 Ker

                2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
          Tuesday, the 5th day of October 2021 / 13th Aswina, 1943
                    IA.NO.1/2020 IN RSA NO. 136 OF 2020
                      OS 66/2015 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI
           AS 117/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT- II, MANJERI
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

     SRI KUTTIHASSAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN MASTER, MOOKIL HOUSE,
     PUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOTTAKKAL, P.O, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM
     DISTRICT.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1.K.A. NAJEEB, S/O.ABDUL KADER, KADURAPARAMBIL HOSUE, EDAPPALI.P.O,
     KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.
     And another



     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to stay the operation
of the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2019 in AS.NO.117/2018 on the files
of the Additional District Court No.II, Manjeri which was against the
judgment dated 31.08.2018 in OS.No.66/2015 on the files of the Subordinate
Judges Court, Manjeri, pending disposal of the above Appeal.
     This application again coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this Court's
order dated 14.09.2021 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.T.P.PRADEEP,
MINIKUMARI M.V., NITHYA VIJAYAN, K.S.BHARATHAN, P.K.SATHEESH KUMAR and
S.SREEDEV, Advocates for the petitioner and of SRI.K.RAKESH, Advocate for
the Respondents 1 and 2, the court passed the following:
                              N.ANIL KUMAR, J.
                              ------------------------
                              RSA 136 of 2020
                         ----------------------------------
                 Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2021


                               ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

respondents.

2. This appeal is admitted on the following

substantial questions of law.

"(i) Did the courts below justify in not considering as to whether by their conduct, plaintiffs have precluded themselves from denying the title of the 2nd Defendent and thereby 1st Defendant has perfected his title in accordance with the proviso to Sections 27 and 30(2) of the Sale of Goods Act?

(ii) In the facts and circumstances of this case, did not the appellant acquire a good title to the plaint schedule car, as per Secation 29 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?"

Issue notice.

RSA 136/2020

IA No.1/2020

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner/appellant and the learned counsel for the

respondents.

4. The operation of the judgment and decree

dated 04.12.2019 in AS No.117/2018 on the files of the

Additional District Court-II, Manjeri arising from the

judgment and decree dated 31.8.2018 in OS

No.66/2015 on the files of the Sub Court, Manjeri stand

stayed on the following conditions:

(1) The appellant shall deposit 25% of the decree

amount with interest and costs before the executing

court on or before two months from the date of this

order.

(2) For the balance decree amount with interest and

costs, the appellant shall furnish sufficient security to the

satisfaction of the executing court within two months as RSA 136/2020

ordered above.

(3) In case of non compliance, the conditional order of

stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated without

any order from this Court.

(4) The executing court is directed to defer execution

of the decree for a period of two months, so as to enable

the petitioner/appellant to comply with the above

directions.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE jg

05-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar