Second appeal against dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession based on alleged wrong boundary in a family partition deed. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved.
The second appeal and pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.
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
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934
RSA.No. 903 of 2011 ( )
AS.14/2005 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG OS.503/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
SRI.V.R.REKESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKALFOR R1 & R2
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------R.S.A. No.903 of 2011
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2012. JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs in O.S.No.503 of 2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg sought recovery of possession of the suit property - 16 cents in R.S.No.122/1A claiming title over the property but, lost the suit to the respondents/defendants. They preferred A.S.No.14 of 2005 but, the learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg confirmed dismissal of the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.
2
RSA No.903/2011
property allotted to the appellants was only 84 cents which they sold as per Exts.B1 and B2, assignment deed Nos.512 and 513 of 1985. That left the appellants with no other property as per the partition deed. They also claimed that the suit property formed part of property belonging to them as per the partition deed.
3
RSA No.903/2011
4
RSA No.903/2011
boundaries, survey numbers, extent, etc., there is no invariable rule that one should prevail over the other and that which should prevail over the other is a matter of constructions of the document.
Second Appeal is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings on boundary disputes in the partition deed suffer from any error of law requiring interference in the second appeal.
Whether the second appeal involves a substantial question of law warranting its admission.
KARTHYAYANI AMMA AND OTHERS
KAMALAVALLY AND ANOTHER
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
