Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 27339 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 September, 2024
2024:KER:69641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
MA (EXE.) NO. 4 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 IN EA NO.42 OF 2021
OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN EP
NO.32 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANTS:
1 MOLLY VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. LATE
VARGHESE, KANDAMPARAMBIL MALAYIL HOUSE,
MADATHUMBHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA. PIN 689543.
PRESENT ADDRESS MOLLY VARGHESE, C/O. V.S.
BABUKUTTY, 103, 7TH CROSS, ANAPALAYA,
BANGLORE, PIN - 560030
2 MARIAYAMM CHACKO, AGED 81 YEARS, D/O. LATE
VARGHESE, KANDAMPARAMBIL MALAYIL HOUSE,
MADATHUMBHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA.,
PIN - 689543
3 SOOSAMMA THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. LATE
VARGHESE, KANDAMPARAMBIL MALAYIL HOUSE,
MADATHUMBHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA. NOW RESIDING
AT, NO. 30, 24 A CROSS, EGIPURA, VIVEK NAGAR
P.O., BANGLORE-, PIN - 560047
BY ADVS.
P.HARIDAS
BIJU HARIHARAN
SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW
P.C.SHIJIN
SAI KRISHNAN UNNITHAN V.
ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB
2024:KER:69641
MA(Exe) 4/24
2
RESPONDENT:
MANJU EASO, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. EASO,
PALAMPRAMBIL HOUSE, ANJILITHANAM P.O.,
ANJILITHANAM MURI, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,
PIN - 689582
BY ADVS.
K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN (THIRUVALLA)
AMRUTHA KALYANI P.(K/000948/2022)
THIS MAT APPEAL (EXECUTION) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:69641
MA(Exe) 4/24
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Even though this matter was argued vehemently by
Sri.Haridas P. - learned counsel for the appellants, for a
considerable period of time, presumably being aware of the
impediments in law that his clients face in an application filed
under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), he
sought permission to withdraw this Appeal; however, praying that
his clients' remedies and recourse in law with regard to the
Preliminary Decree of partition, earlier obtained by them in the
year 2018, be reserved.
2. Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan - learned counsel for the
respondent, in response, submitted that the afore liberty is always
available to the appellants and that it is not required to be
reserved by this Court.
3. We notice from the pleadings and evidence on record, 2024:KER:69641
MA(Exe) 4/24
that the specific case of the appellants is that they had obtained a
Preliminary Decree qua ¼th right over the property in question in
the year 2018; and that an application for Final Decree has not
yet been filed. Obviously, if they have liberties in law to do so
and to thus pursue the matter, we cannot inhibit it,
notwithstanding these proceedings.
In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is permitted to be
withdrawn; however, reserving every liberty that may be available
to the appellants in law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE RR
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!