Considering an appeal against the dismissal of a suit seeking declaration and injunction regarding title and possession of landed property. The High Court held that the identity of the B schedule property could not be established due to commissioner's report and boundary inconsistencies.
The regular second appeal was dismissed.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932
RSA.No. 765 of 2010(G)
--------------------------------[AS.NO.63/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-I), MANJERI, OS.NO.83/2002 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANJERI]
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------------------------------------
MUHAMMED HILAL K.V., S/O.KOYAKUTTY, KOORIMANNIL VALIYAMANNIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, DESOM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MANNIYIL ABDU, S/O.MOHAMMED, VETTUPURAM, PULLIYILANGADI, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM.
2. PARAMBAN NASEEMA, W/O.MANNIYIL ABDU, VETTUPURAM, PULLIYILANGADI, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM.
BY
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010 -------------------------Dated this the 20th July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him, the plaintiff in O.S. No.83/2002 before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri has come up in appeal before this Court.
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010
2
they will trespass into B schedule property. He therefore seeks a declaration that plaint B schedule property is part of the A schedule property which was obtained from his father as per the partition deed.
3
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010
the plaintiff. Exts. C1 and C2 are the commission report and plan. No oral evidence was adduced by the plaintiff.
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010
4
side of A schedule property.
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010
5
There is no merit in this Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
ma
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010
6
R.S.A No. 765 of 2010
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint B schedule property can be identified based on the commissioner's report and boundary discrepancies.
Whether the lower courts were justified in dismissing the suit for inability to locate the identified property.
MUHAMMED HILAL K.V.
MANNIYIL ABDU
PARAMBAN NASEEMA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
