R. Raveendran vs Thomas John
2024 Latest Caselaw 9969 Ker

Kerala High Court

R. Raveendran vs Thomas John on 5 April, 2024

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
           Friday, the 5th day of April 2024 / 16th Chaithra, 1946
                      IA.NO.1/2024 IN RSA NO. 69 OF 2024
                    OS 334/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR
                       AS 19/2020 OF SUB COURT, PUNALUR
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:

     R. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, ANADHABHAVAN, (DEVI
     BHAVAN), PULLAMCODE MURI, ARACKAL VILLAGE, EDAYAM P.O, PUNALUR
     TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691532

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

  1. THOMAS JOHN, AGED 79 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 532.
  2. C.K MARYKUTTY, AGED 76 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691 532.
  3. MAMMEN THOMAS, AGED 69 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691 532.
  4. JACOB THOMAS, AGED 66 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691 532.
  5. JACOB GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691 532.
  6. JIJI GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK. KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691 532.
  7. REJI GEORGE, AGED 43 YEARS, MAMOOTTIL BUNGLOW, EDAYAM P.O, ARACKAL
     VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK. KOLLAM DISTRICT,   PIN - 691 532.

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to stay the operation
and execution of the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2023 in AS.No.19/2020
of the Subordinate Judge's Court,Punalur till the disposal of this Second
Appeal.
     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.O.V.MANIPRASAD, JOSE ANTONY, HARIKRISHNAN P., Advocates for the
petitioner, the court passed the following:
 R.S.A.Nos.69 & 76 of 2024

                                ..1..



               C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
     ---------------------------------------
             R.S.A.Nos.69 & 76 of 2024
     ----------------------------------------
       Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024


                          COMMON ORDER

Admit. Issue notice to the respondents on the

following substantial questions of law:

(1) In reversing the judgment of the trial

court, whether the First Appellate Court

was justified in construing Exts.A1 & A2

as security documents and not sale

deeds?

(2) Whether suit for declaration of title

and recovery of possession is

maintainable, when the plaintiff rests

his claim on an oral agreement for

re-conveyance of the property? Whether

the plaintiff should have filed a suit

for specific performance?

R.S.A.Nos.69 & 76 of 2024

..2..

I.A.No.1/2024 in R.S.A.No.69/2024 & I.A.No.1/2024 in R.S.A.No.76/2024

The execution of the judgment and decree impugned

will stand stayed for a period of two months.

Post on 06.06.2024

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE TR

05-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar