John v. P.Janaki
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the second appeal in part, confirming the respondents' right of easement by implied grant over a pathway but setting aside the finding on quasi easement. The Court directed appellants to remove obstructions but permitted them to lock the gate if they provide a duplicate key to respondents.
What did the court decide?
Appellants directed to remove obstructions within two months but allowed to lock gate if duplicate key provided to respondents; setting aside finding on quasi easement.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2012/8TH SRAVANA 1934
RSA.No. 25 of 2006 ( )
AS.186/2004 of DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM OS.175/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS::
- (*)1. JOHN, AGED 75 YEARS,
- S/O. ULAHANNAN, VALAVATHU, PADINJATTUMCHERI, THEKKEMURI, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
- VAIKOM P.O. (DIED. LRS. IMPLEADED)
- JOSEPH, S/O. JOHN, VALAVATHU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMCHERI THEKKEMURI, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.
ADDL.APPELLANTS 3 TO 9:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate court was right in holding that respondents have a right of easement by way of grant when the alleged grantor had no title over the alleged pathway?
Whether the first appellate court was right in granting a decree of easement by way of quasi easement when there was no pleading in that behalf advanced by the respondents?
Whether the appellants are entitled to keep a lock on the gate of the pathway subject to providing a duplicate key to the respondents.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
John
- appellant
Joseph
- respondent
P. Janaki
- respondent
J. Santhakumari
- respondent
J. Leelamani
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court