The court dismissed the second appeal filed by plaintiffs challenging a dismissal of their suit for possession of a narrow land strip. The court held the plaintiffs failed to establish title or possession, as the commission report and title deeds excluded the land.
S.A No. 83 of 1998 is dismissed; there will be no order as to costs.
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
THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932
SA.No. 83 of 1998(B)
-------------------AS.40/1997 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.274/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR ....................
APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. B.K.AMBIKACHARAN, S/O. KRISHNASWAMY IYER, KATTIPARUTHI AMSOM, VALANCHERY DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.
2. 1ST APPELLANT'S WIFE CHERUKATT KALATHIL MANIYAMMA'S DAUGHTER MADHAVIKUTTY AMMA, KATTIPARUTHI AMSOM, VALANCHERY DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. NOW THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT PALANI IN TAMIL NADU.
BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------VALANCHERI PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VALANCHERI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------S.A No. 83 of 1998
Dated this the 15th July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
A narrow strip of land having a width of 3 1/2 feet and length of 210 feet forms the subject matter of the litigation. Plaintiffs claim that it was possessed by them and wanted the Panchayat to desist from interfering with their possession.
S.A No. 83 of 1998
2
the disputed property.
S.A No. 83 of 1998
3
to show the hollowness of the claims made by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have received Item 3 in Ext.A1, in which, eastern boundary is shown as narrow strip of land, which is the subject matter of suit. It is therefore evident that strip of land lies outside the property received by the plaintiffs. It is significant to note that compound wall is built excluding that portion. These facts are sufficient to show that the claim made by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted.
S.A No. 83 of 1998
4
appeal. Therefore, contentions based on Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act need not be considered in this appeal. The appeal is without merits and accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
ma
S.A No. 83 of 1998
5
S.A No. 83 of 1998
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants (Plaintiffs) have any title or possession over the narrow strip of land disputed in the suit.
Whether the appeal warrants consideration under Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
Whether the findings of the courts below dismissing the suit were based on cogent evidence.
1. B.K. Ambikacharan; 2. Madhavikutty Amma
Valancheri Panchayat
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
