w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



J. Xavier v/s Joseph


Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

    S.A. No. 873 of 2008 & M.P. No. 1 of 2008

    Decided On, 29 January 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PARTHIBAN

    For the Appellant: V. Srimathi for M/s. V. Raghavachari, Advocates. For the Respondent: No appearance.



Judgment Text


(Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Sub Court, Vellore, in A.S.No.57 of 2007 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2006, passed by the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, in O.S.No.506 of 1996.)

1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit as against the judgment and decree, dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Sub Court, Vellore, in A.S.No.57 of 2007, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 26.04.2006, passed by the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, in O.S.No.506 of 1996, which was one for permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff approached the trial Court, by filing O.S.No.506 of 1996, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had executed a Registered Settlement Deed-Ex.A1, on 15.07.1992. By virtue of the said settlement deed, the plaintiff derived his title to the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the Revenue records were also mutated in his favour in respect of the suit property and he has been paying the property tax in his own name, thereafter. The defendant also had given his consent in writing to the Electricity Board for the transfer of service connection to the suit property and the transfer had also been effected in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been paying the Electricity charges in his own name ever since.

5. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has been residing with his second wife in a different place. However, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, he being a Police Constable, was away from the suit schedule property, quite often. On 05.07.1996 when the plaintiff was staying in the suit schedule property, the defendant appears to have demanded the vacation of the property by the plaintiff by stating that he had revoked the Settlement Deed-Ex.A1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant also threatened him that he would forcibly take possession of the same. In the said circumstances, the suit was laid seeking the prayer of permanent injunction.

6. The defendant, the father of the plaintiff, filed the written statement resisting the prayer of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had compelled him to execute the Settlement Deed in his favour and the settlement deed was, therefore, executed under compelling circumstances and also believing that the plaintiff would look after him and his second wife. However, later on, according to the defendant, possession was not handed over, since he and his wife were living in that place.

7. The trial Court, having dealt with the rival contentions of the parties and also considering the materials and evidence placed on record, has found that the claim of the plaintiff was established and accordingly decreed the suit. The trial Court, while decreeing the suit, has held that the Settlement was acted upon and there was also mutation of Revenue records, on the basis of the Settlement Deed, which was marked as Ex.A1. The trial Court also found that the defendant’s second wife was also a party to the document as one of the witnesses. In fact, the trial Court found that the plea taken by the defendant that the Settlement Deed was revoked/cancelled was not supported by any evidence. According to the trial Court, cancellation of settlement was a self-serving document, which cannot bind the plaintiff. The trial Court has also found that the property tax and all other relevant records stood in the name of the plaintiff, subsequent to the Settlement Deed. Moreover, crucially the trial Court found that the Settlement Deed (Ex.A1) itself contains a clause that the same is irrevocable and once such a clause was incorporated in the Settlement Deed, under no circumstances, the Settlement Deed could be revoked, legally. In all fours, the trial Court agreed with the claim of the plaintiff and granted permanent injunction as prayed for. As against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal, in A.S.No.57 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore.

8. The appellate Court, which dealt with the appeal, has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, on the ground that there was a possibility of the plaintiff’s sister might stake a share in the property and therefore, the plaintiff could have pressurized the defendant to execute a Settlement Deed in his favour. The appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff alone was given enjoyment, possession and title of the property belonging to the defendant and hence, there was a strong possibility that such Settlement Deed-Ex.A1 could have been given under compelling circumstances by the defendant. On the basis of such presumption, the appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the present Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

9. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following Substantial Question of Law:

“Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are perverse on account of its misconception of the documents in Exs.A1, A3, A10 as well as Ex.B3?”

10. Ms.Srimathi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that it was quite strange that the lower appellate Court, which was to deal with the appeal on the basis of the materials placed on record, had completely ignored the findings of the trial Court and premised its reversal findings on the basis of presumption alone. The presumption drawn by the appellate Court would have been born out of its fertile imagination, not based on any document. When the Settlement Deed was a registered one and was an irrevocable document, the question of its cancellation did not arise at all. The trial Court, after appreciating the legal principle and also the factum of mutation effected in the Revenue records and the factum of the Settlement Deed being acted upon by the parties, had come to the right conclusion and the lower Appellate Court has completely misdirected itself by overturning the verdict of the trial Court and therefore, the learned counsel would implore this Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.

11. The learned counsel would also submit that in order to revoke the Settlement Deed, there must be a specific clause in the deed, for which, the learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of 1.Ramachandran and another vs. 1.Baby and five others [2003-3-L.W.189]. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.32 of the judgment, a portion of which is extracted hereunder.

“32. The recitals in Ex.A2 are so categorical that out of love and affection which the donor had with the donee, he had executed the settlement deed and also specifically stated that he had given possession of the property and the donee had also taken possession of the same. Above all it is also stated that the donor had no right to revoke the settlement deed in any circumstance. It is, therefore, clear that the donor had not reserved any right to cancel and in the absence of the same, the cancellation deed executed by the donor under Ex.A3 is not valid in law. . . . . :

12. The learned counsel would submit that in fact, on the contrary, Ex.A1- Settlement Deed contains a clause that the document is irrevocable. 13.The learned counsel would also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.Balakrishnan vs. K.Kamalam and Others [(2004)1 Supreme Court Cases 581]. She would particularly draw the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.31 of the decision, which is extracted hereunder:

“31. In our considered opinion therefore, the trial court and the High Court were wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no valid acceptance of the gift by the minor donee. Consequently, conclusion has to follow that the gift having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete, it was irrevocable under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 126 prohibits revocation of a validly executed gift except in circumstances mentioned therein. The gift was executed in 1945. It remained in force for about 25 years during which time the donee had attained majority and had not repudiated the same. It was, therefore, not competent for the donor to have cancelled the gift and executed a Will in relation to the property.”

14. In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a Gift Deed, which was acted upon by passage of time, cannot be unilaterally revoked.

15. Despite notice having been served on the respondent/defendant and his name also appeared in the cause list, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent/defendant.

16. This Court considered the submissions of Ms.Srimathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the materials and pleadings placed on record.

17. At the outset, this Court has to conclude that it is an open and shut case for the plaintiff, i.e. when the Settlement Deed was executed on 15.07.1992 (Ex.A1), which particularly contains a clause that the same was irrevocable, the defendant having executed the Settlement Deed, is prohibited in law from cancelling the document. The reasons, as assigned by the defendant, in the written statement, for cancelling the Settlement Deed, are hardly convincing and the same do not carry conviction with the Court. Whatever be the reasons for cancellation, ultimately the Courts have to see as to whether such cancellation or revocation is permissible in law. Once a Settlement Deed is executed and acted upon, unless there is any condition or any rider for its revocation, any Settlement Deed becomes irrevocable. In this case, more so, when a clause is incorporated in the Settlement Deed itself that the document is irrevocable and therefore, the defendant cannot come out with any reason for its cancellation, as it is prohibited in law from going back on the Settlement Deed, which deed was acted upon by the parties.

18. The decisions cited on behalf of the appellant would reinforce the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the document like the present one, viz., Ex.A1-Settlement Deed, executed, cannot be revoked at all.

19. The trial Court has rightly understood the law and also rightly appreciated the factual matrix of the rival claims and decreed the suit as prayed for. In fact, the trial Court has also found that the defendant’s wife herself was a party to the document.

20. However, unfortunately, the lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court on the basis of extraneous and strange presumption that there may be a possible claim by another legal heir of the defendant, viz., the sister of the plaintiff, for

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

a share in the property. It looks like the appellate Court has stepped into the shoes of the defendant and viewed the case as if its role is to protect the interest of the family of the defendant de hors the decision taken by the defendant himself. This Court is unable to appreciate as to how the lower appellate Court can act upon such needless presumption, ignoring the materials and facts, which were rightly appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court has to come to an irresistible conclusion that the decision of the lower appellate Court is contrary to law and facts. Therefore, the finding rendered by the lower appellate Court, which was the basis for its judgment and decree, has to go lock, stock and barrel. 21. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, passed in A.S.No.57 of 2007, dated 13.12.2007, are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial Court, passed in O.S.No.506 of 1996, dated 26.04.2006, are upheld. The Second Appeal stands allowed. The Substantial Question of Law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-03-2020 Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Joy Joseph Versus Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj Versus St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 IC 29547 L Bobby Joseph Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Priya Versus Biju Joseph High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M.M. Joseph Versus Yoonus & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2019 Alwin Joseph Versus The Superintendent of Police, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Sushil Joseph Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Paul Joseph Shirole & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 B.S. Shabana Versus Kevin Joseph Selvadoray High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., V.H. Kammath Towers, Kadathy, Muvattupuzha Versus James K. Joseph & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Charly Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
30-07-2019 Sijo Joseph Versus The Transport Commissioner, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2019 Geemol Joseph, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Losan Joseph Versus Kousthabhan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Thampi Kannanthanam & Others Versus Molly George @ Molamma High Court of Kerala
14-06-2019 V.M. Joseph Versus Kadanad Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
14-06-2019 C. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2019 Clarence Joseph Bhengra Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
07-06-2019 L'Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal Versus J.J Supreme Court of Canada
30-05-2019 Thresiamma Manshoven Versus Manshoven Jacques Joseph High Court of Kerala
30-05-2019 D.B. Jatti & Another Versus Kambam Sudhir Joseph Reddy & Another High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2019 Asha, Rep. by the Power of Attorney Holder Jonh D'cruz Versus P.K. Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
02-05-2019 Lydia Agnes Rodrigues (Since deceased) through her legal heirs & Others Versus Joseph Anthony D'Cunha & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-04-2019 Viji Joseph & Another Versus P. Chander & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Management of St. Joseph of Cluny Montessori School, Pondicherry Versus The Director of School Education, Government of Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2019 Joseph Santhosh Kottarathil Alexander & Others Versus The Superintendent of Customs (Aiu), Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
29-03-2019 Joseph Peter & Others Versus Elizabath Manuel & Others High Court of Kerala
25-03-2019 Commissioner, West Arni Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai Versus St. Joseph Social Welfare Centre, Rep by Brother & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Joseph Saldhana Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-03-2019 K.A. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
07-03-2019 Sebastian Joseph Versus The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2019 James Joseph Murren as Trustee of the James J Murren Spendthrift Trust & Daniel Lee Versus Glenn Schaeffer Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-02-2019 Tushar Versus Internal Complaints Committee Christ University, Rep. by its Presiding Officer Dr. Mayamma Joseph & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-02-2019 Shali Joseph & Another Versus S.K. Sasikumar High Court of Kerala
19-02-2019 P.B. Dineshan Pillai Versus Joseph @ Jose High Court of Kerala
18-02-2019 Joseph Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-02-2019 HDB Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Legal Officer (Kerala) & Authorized Officer, A.C. Pratheesh Versus M/s. Kings Baker Private Limited, Kottayam, Represented by Its Proprietor, Tom.P. Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
08-02-2019 Malabar Granites, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary , Koppam Grama Panchayat, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2019 Sami Labs Limited Versus M.V. Joseph High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2019 P. Santhosh Joseph & Another Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2019 The Commercial Tax Officer, Changanassery & Others Versus M/s. Hotel Breezeland Ltd., Changanassery, Represented by Its Managing Director Joseph Cherian & Another High Court of Kerala
24-01-2019 Thomas Joseph Versus Caculo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Another Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
24-01-2019 Malabar Granites, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayat & Others High Court of Kerala
23-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Represented by its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District(2019) Supreme Court of United States
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District (2019) Supreme Court of United States
18-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Thrissur, Represented by Its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2019 Joseph Velivil Versus Nucleus Premium Properties Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Nishad N.P, Ventura Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
11-01-2019 Suo Motu, K. Ani Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
11-01-2019 Joseph George & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, State Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2019 The Assistant General Manager & Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India Consortium, Ernakulam Main Branch Versus The Dewa Investors Association, Ernakulam, Represented By Its President Prince Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
19-12-2018 The Refugee Appeal Board of South Africa & Others Versus Paul Joseph Mutombo Mukungubila Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
14-12-2018 Suriyur Vivasayigal Pathukappu Sangam, Rep. by its President, T. Ramaraj, Trichy Versus LA Bottlers Private Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Joseph Francis, Thiruchirappalli & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-12-2018 K.A. Joseph, Kannur District & Another Versus South Indian Bank Ltd, Kannur & Another Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
13-12-2018 Stella Joseph & Another Versus The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Kerala
29-11-2018 Alphonsa Joseph and Others V/S Anand Joseph High Court of Kerala Ernakulam Bench
30-10-2018 Tomy Joseph Versus Smitha Tomy High Court of Kerala