Mohammed Thameem v. Peeru Mohammed Meera Sahib
Case brief
What is this about?
This regular second appeal challenged the first appellate court's acceptance of Plan No. 2 for partition of immovable property. The court found no substantial question of law required admission and dismissed the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal and pending interlocutory applications are dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934
RSA.No. 746 of 2012 ()
AS.168/2008 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.924/2002 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT(S)/7TH RESPONDENT/7TH DEFENDANT:
MOHAMMED THAMEEM
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS THOMMEN IN THE A.S. JUDGMENT) S/O. ABDUL KADAR, AGED 52 YEARS, VARUVILAKKATHU VEEDU M.A. K.HOUSE, VAZHIMUKKU, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM-695501.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SMT.A.V.PRIYA
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6 & 8:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal admits to be entertained given the absence of a substantial question of law.
Whether the equitable division of land under Plan No. 2 is preferable over Plan No. 1.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
MOHAMMED THAMEEM
- respondent
PEERU MOHAMMED MEERA SAHIB
- respondent
HAJARA BEEVI
- respondent
BEEVI KUNJU
- respondent
PEERUKANNAU ABDUL SALIM
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court