Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3302 (KER)

PAVITHRAN A., v. RAGHAV @ RAGHAVAN A.,

RSA/249/2020 · 2025-03-24

M A Abdul Hakhim

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:KER:24958 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 RSA NO. 249 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2019 IN AS NO.82 OF 2016 OF SUB COURT, KANNUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.08.2016 IN OS NO.179 OF 2014 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 & 7 TO 9: 1 PAVITHRAN A., AGED 63 YEARS S/O.LATE ANDI ACHARI, OLADATHU THAZHA, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR. 2 SHANTHA A., AGED 55 YEARS D/O.LATE ANDI ACHARI, ATADAPPA HOUSE, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR. 3 VANAJA A., AGED 47 YEARS D/O.LATE ANDI ACHARI, ATADAPPA HOUSE, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR. 4 VISHALAKSHI, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN, AMBILI METAL WORKS, PUTHIYATHERU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. 5 JAYESH, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN, AMBILI METAL WORKS, PUTHIYATHERU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. 2025:KER:24958 RSA NO. 249 OF 2020 2 6 AMBILI, AGED 35 YEARS D/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN, AMBILI METAL WORKS, PUTHIYATHERU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. 7 RIJESH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN, AMBILI METAL WORKS, PUTHIYATHERU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. BY ADVS. V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS NO.6: 1 RAGHAV @ RAGHAVAN A., AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.LATE ANDI ACHARI MANJUNATHA GARAGE, SANTHA KATTE, BELTHANGDI, KARNATAKA - 591 102. 2 VIJESH, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN AMBILI METAL WORKS, PUTHIYATHERU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR - 670 011. BY ADV P.P.RAMACHANDRAN – R1. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24958 RSA NO. 249 OF 2020 3 JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the subject matter has been settled between the parties and is not pressing the matter. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE mus