Suresh v. Antony
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Kerala dismissed a second appeal challenging a decree for a prohibitory injunction. The court held that the appellant failed to prove adverse possession and upheld the execution of the respondent's Power of Attorney under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.NO. 656 OF 2012 ()
--------------------------------------OS.105/2009 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI AS.95/2009 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
SURESH, S/O.SUKU, KAITHEVUPPIL, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN 682 509.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
ANTONY, S/O. LATE MATHU, RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A. SHAJU, S/O.ANTO, PAZHEKKATTU HOUSE, EDAVANAKADU.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is satisfied that the impugned judgment and decree attracted the intervention of Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Whether the presumption under Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding the execution of a Power of Attest authenticated by a Notary Public is rebutted.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Suresh
- respondent
Antony
Coram
Thomas P. Joseph
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court