The Second Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in limine because permissive possession cannot support a claim of adverse possession, meaning no substantial question of law arises for determination.
Second Appeal dismissed in limine.
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 V.RAMKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RSA.No. 856 of 2008()
--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2006 IN AS. 67 /2000 IN AS.46/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.414/1995 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.RAMKUMAR,J.
R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008
DATED: 2-12-2008
JUDGMENT
Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 414 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The said suit instituted by the respondents herein was one for mandatory injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction.
R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008
-:2:-
relationship between the parties. Since the occupation of the appellants was permissive in nature, they could not plead adverse possession and limitation since it is well settle that permissive possession can never be adverse. The findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact.
No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal also do not arise for determination in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Dated this the 2nd December 2008.
Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
/true copy/
ani
R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008 -:3:-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is a question of law or substantial question of law arising from the finding that defendants had permissive possession.
K. BALAKRISHNAN
V.P. GOWRI
SREEKANTHAN
N.K. NARAYANAN
V.P. DHAKSHIYAYINI
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
