Dismissed

Sankara Kurup v. Chekkotty

Kerala HC16 Jul 2008RP/599/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the application. The petitioners argued that the second appeal was wrongly dismissed for not proving adverse possession and the respondent's marital status. The court found no apparent error warranting review beyond the scope of an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of one thousand rupees.

Sankara Kurup Vs Chekkotty — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

RP.No. 599 of 2008()

¶6

-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.736/2007

¶7

: REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:-

¶8

¶9

SNKARA KURUP, RESIDING AT KURUKANKUNIYIL MUYIPPOTH P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

JANU, D/O POKKINI, RESIDING AT KURUKANKUNIYIL, MUYIPPOTH P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

CHEKKOTTY, S/O KORAPPAN EDAKKUDITHARAMMAL HOUSE, VILATYATHUR AMSOM, DESOM, IRINGATH P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶18

===========================

¶19

R.P.No.599 of 2008 in R.S.A. NO.736 OF 2007

¶20

===========================

¶21

Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed under Rule 1 Order XLVII

¶24

of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment

¶25

dated 14.1.2008 by which second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that while dismissing the second appeal, fact that Chekkotti referred in Exts.A5 and A6 is the husband of the plaintiff was not proved was not properly considered in the judgment. It was also argued that question of adverse possession was also not properly dealt with and appellants have been in possession of the property uninterruptedly from 1983 onwards.

¶26

On hearing the learned counsel and on going

¶27

through the judgment in the Second Appeal, I do not

¶28

find any apparent error or other sufficient reason warranting a review. If the case of the petitioner

¶29

R.P.599/08 in R.S.A.736/07 2 is that the findings in the judgment are not correct based on the evidence, remedy is to challenge it in appeal and the scope of a petition for review is not equivalent to that of an appeal. Review Petition is dismissed.

¶30

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶31

tpl/-

¶32

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶33

--------------------W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

SEPTEMBER,2006

Sankara Kurup v. Chekkotty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankara Kurup v. Chekkotty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kseb Vs Parappooru Rajagopal

Raja Paul Vs Shaji Jacob

N.Nithya Vs P.P.Leelavathy

Angamaly Chits Fund (P) Ltd. Vs C.R.Jayasree & Others

Mrs.Vyjayanthimala Viswambharan Vs Viswambharan

K.S.Sheeja Vs K.M.Shajeed