Saidalavi v. Kadheeja
Case brief
What is this about?
Cour dated allowed amendment to plaint adding prayer for declaration of easement and mandatory injunction. Found amendment correct despite lapses in lower court order. Defendants allowed to file additional written statement.
What did the court decide?
Plaint amendment allowed; declaration of easement by grant and mandatory injunction incorporated; order below affirmed subject to right to file additional statement.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP(C).No. 3924 of 2012 (O)
OS.230/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT,PARAPPANANGADI
PETITIONER(S)/2ND DEFENDANT:
SAIDALAVI S/O. ILLIKKAL MUHAMMEDKUTTY ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPARAMBU (PO) PIN-TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HAMZA S/O. ILLIKKAL MUHAMMEDKUTTY ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPARAMBU (PO) PIN-TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF :
- KADHEEJA, D/O. EDAKKANDAN MUHAMMED, EDAKKANDAN HOUSE
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order allowing amendment of plaint to add a claim for declaration of easement by grant and mandatory injunction calls for interference.
Whether the lower court was justified in allowing the amendment without recording contentions in the order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
SAIDALAVI
- respondent
KADHEEJA
Coram
V. CHITAMBARESH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court