Raihanath vs Rubeena
2022 Latest Caselaw 9062 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
   WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944


                          RSA NO. 408 OF 2015


AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 12/2008 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR
              AND OS 155/2003 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANTS:

    1       RAIHANATH
            AGED 29 YEARS,D/O.YOUSEF, NADUTHODI HOUSE, TIRURANGADI
            TALUK, PUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
    2       SAINABA
            AGED 27 YEARS
            D/O.YOUSEF, DO. DO.
    3       YOUSEF
            AGED 62 YEARS
            S/O.KUNHAVARAN, DO.DO.

            BY ADV SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1       RUBEENA
            AGED 23 YEARS
            D/O.MALAYIL KADEEJA, DO.DO.
    2       THASLEENA
            AGED 22 YEARS
            D/O.MALAYIL KADEEJA, DO. DO.
    3       SHIHAB
            AGED 20 YEARS
            S/O.MALAYIL KADEEJA, DO. DO.
    4       MALAYIL KADEEJA
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O.SAID, MALAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR
            TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADV SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ



     THIS     REGULAR   SECOND   APPEAL   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.S.A No.408 of 2015                  2




                          M.R.ANITHA, J.
              ===========================
                      R.S.A No.408 of 2015
              ============================
               Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022

                                JUDGMENT

The above Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging

the judgment and decree in A.S.No.12 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Tirur

and also the judgment and decree in O.S.No.155 of 2003 of the Munsiff's

Court, Tirur.

2. Today, when the case was taken for hearing, it is reported by

the learned counsel for the appellants that a memo has been filed to

the effect that the 1st and 2nd appellants along with their step brother

and sister together had purchased the entire right, title and interest of

3rd appellant their father and all the respondents over the plaint

schedule property as per document No.2254/2022 of the Kottakkal Sub

Registrar Office.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents also present.

In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant

filed memo to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Accordingly, the memo

recorded and appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

M. R. ANITHA JUDGE nk