Regular second appeal from decree dismissing suit for injunction. Single judge held courts below correctly found appellant not in possession based on evidence of partition and possession by other parties. Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law. R.S.A. No. 354 of 2012.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.No. 354 of 2012 () ---------------------AS.121/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA OS.100/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
THANKAMMAL, KALEEKKATHARAYIL VEEDU,PATHIYOORKALA MURI PATHIYOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.PREMCHAND
SRI.V.TEKCHAND
RESPONDENS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
SUNIL BHAVANAM,PANAYIL MURI,PALAMEL VILLAGE-676516
SUNIL BHAVANAM,PANAYIL MURI,PALAMEL VILLAGE-676516
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
R.S.A.No.354 of 2012
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2012
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.No.100 of 2001 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Kayamkulam is the appellant, challenging concurrent finding entered by the trial and first appellate courts.
R.S.A.No.354 of 2012
-: 2 :-
in recognition of the said partition, the two portions were brought in separate sub divisions in the re-survey. Respondents 1 to 4 sold their share to the 5th respondent by Ext.B1, assignment deed dated 01.02.1994. 5th respondent contended that she purchased the share of respondents 1 to 4 as per Ext.B1 and later sold it to the 6th respondent as per Ext.B3. Ext.B4 is the receipt for payment of revenue. 6th respondent contended that he purchased the property from the 5th respondent as per Ext.B3.
R.S.A.No.354 of 2012
-: 3 :-
evidence to enter a finding regarding possession of the property as done by the courts below. That in my view involves no substantial question of law.
The second appeal is dismissed.
(THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether finding of courts below on possession of property involving substantial question of law
Whether rival claims of ownership based on partition and subsequent sale warrants interference
Whether construction of house by appellant establishes possession as found by courts below
Thankammal
Parvathiammal
Sobhanamma
Ushammal
Sudhiammal
Rasheeda
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
