Baby Mathew v. Jose
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal on partition of land; court dismissed suit as plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of boundary wall and that plaint B schedule is part of plaint A schedule; awarded no costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932
SA.No. 510 of 1997(B)
-------------------------------AS.3/1995 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM OS.1675/1990 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFFS
------------------------
1. BABY MATHEW, S/O/ LATE MR.MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT MATTAMANA HOUSE NO.47/895, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.
2. BABU MATHEW, S/O. LATE MR.MATHEW, AGED 34 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT MATTAMANA HOUSE NO.47/895, KALOOR , ERNAKULAM.
3. BIJU MATHEW, S/O. LATE MR.MATHEW, BUSINESS, GED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTAMANA HOUSE NBO.47/895, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether plaint B schedule forms part of plaint A schedule for ownership purposes
Whether the right of way claimed by plaintiffs includes ownership of boundary wall
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
BABY MATHEW, S/O/ LATE MR.MATHEW
- petitioner
BABU MATHEW, S/O. LATE MR.MATHEW
- petitioner
BIJU MATHEW, S/O. LATE MR.MATHEW
- petitioner
MRS. SARA MATHEW, W/O. LATE MR.MATHEW
- respondent
JOSE, S/O.VARIAMPARAMBIL JOSEPH
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court