Kuriakose v. Geevarghese
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against second appeal in partition suit dismissed. Court held appellant not entitled to declaration as actual possession differs from partition deed but can retain possession within existing limits.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed. Appellant entitled to retain existing possession but no declaration or injunction granted.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RSA.No. 649 of 2008()
A.S.NO.59/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR O.S.NO.464/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
KURIAKOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O CHUMMAR, OORAKKADAN HOUSE, NEDUNGAPRA KARA, VENGOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a declaration of title and injunction given the actual possession differs from the partition deed.
Whether the appellant can insist on the extent of property described in the partition deed when actual possession is lesser.
Whether the second appeal should be dismissed as the appellant is not entitled to the prayers.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kurialkose
- respondent
Geevarghese
- respondent
Eldhose
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court