Paulose v. K.C.John
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Kerala disposed of a second appeal against a decree for eviction. The Court held the appellants could not claim an irrevocable license as they did not construct the building. The appeal was dismissed, granting four months for the appellants to vacate the premises.
What did the court decide?
Appellants granted four months to vacate the premises; execution proceedings stayed during this period.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/25TH SRAVANA 1934
RSA.NO. 976 OF 2012 ()
AS.111/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA OS.257/2000 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. PAULOSE NEDIYATHU VEETTIL, AYIKKATTU MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE.
2. K.P.MATHEW S/O.POULOSE, NEDIYATHU VEETTIL, AYIKKATTU MURI CHINGOLI VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to an irrevocable license under Sec.60(b) of the Easements Act given the respondent constructed the building using appellant funds.
Whether proof of construction workers' welfare fund contribution by the respondent proves the appellants' title or creates a permanent interest.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
PAULOSE NEDIYATHU VEETTIL
- appellant
K.P.MATHEW
- respondent
K.C.JOHN
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court