CHOLAPILAKKAL ABDUL NAZER Vs. KUTTANPARAMBATH K. LAXMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registry has noted a defect to the effect that a single memorandum of Regular First Appeal would not suffice against a decree dismissing the suit and decreeing the counter claim. The Registry opined that two separate memorandum of Regular First Appeal need to be filed against the decree in view of Girija Vs. Rajan, 2015 (1) KLT 695. We however directed the Registry to number the Regular First Appeal with a rider that its maintainability would be decided during hearing at the time of admission.

(2.) We accordingly heard Mr. T. Krishnan Unni, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. M.P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. P.K. Mohanan, Advocate on behalf of the second respondent as also Mr. P. Viswanathan, Advocate as amicus curiae at the time of admission.

(3.) The suit is one for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property. The counter claim filed by the first defendant is one for a decree to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff on the strength of title. The suit in O.S.No. 318/2010 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Sulthanbathery was dismissed and the counter claim decreed. The plaintiff has filed a single memorandum of Regular First Appeal against the composite decree however showing the valuation and the payment of court fee separately.