The court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a plaintiff seeking relief for forcible dispossession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court found no legal infirmity in the lower court's judgment which relied on evidence establishing the defendants' possession.
The civil revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930
CRP.No. 649 of 2005()
--------------------OS.177/2001 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD
REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF
SUNIL ALEX, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAJAYYAN, RESIDING AT CHERUPUSHPA VILASATHU VEEDU, T.C. 34/451, KANNANTHURA, KARIKKAKAM MURI, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
SMT.RESHMI POULOSE
RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS
BY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
C.R.P.No.649 of 2005
Dated this the 3rd June, 2008.
O R D E R
Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.177/2001, on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Nedumangad, and respondents are the defendants. The suit was filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, contending that respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioner on 29.1.2001, while petitioner and his aunt were out of station, by breaking open the door of the building in the plaint schedule property, and that too, making use of ex parte order of temporary injunction granted by the court in O.S.No.64/01. Recovery of possession is claimed on the ground of forcible dispossession.
CRP No.649/05
2
what was claimed by the petitioner was that respondents forcibly dispossessed him on the strength of an ex parte order of injunction obtained in O.S.No.64/01, and under Ext.B1 judgment, court had rejected the case of petitioner that he has been in possession of the property and upheld the case of respondents that they are in possession of the property and a decree of injunction was granted. In the light of Ext.B2 decree granted in that suit which has become final, petitioner cannot contend that that he has been in possession of plaint schedule property, and was dispossessed as alleged. It is for this reason, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference invoking the powers of this Court under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether finding of the trial court that the suit property was in the possession of defendants provides authority to uphold the dismissal of the revision petition.
Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference under Section 115 of CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
sunil alex
resmith poulose
santha
kamal prasad
saranya kamal
m.sasidharan nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
