Ummer v. Abdul Rasheed
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners challenged dismissal of an application for injunction to erect a barbed fence. The Court dismissed the petition, noting lack of well-defined boundaries, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.
What did the court decide?
This original petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 2936 of 2015 (O)
I.A.NO.1056/2015 IN O.S.NO.30/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI
PETITIONER(S):
1. UMMER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.CHERUMKUZHIYIL VEERAN, VALLAPUZHA AMSOM, CHERUKODE DESOM, PATTAMBI TALUK.
2. MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHERUKKUZHIYIL VEERAN, DO-DO
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S) :
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an injunction application for putting up a barbed fence should be allowed in absence of well-defined physical boundaries.
Whether the trial court should be directed to dispose of the pending suit within a specific time.
Whether adjudication of boundary disputes on interior evidence is permissible at the interlocutory stage.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
UMMER
- petitioner
MUHAMMED KUTTY
- respondent
ABDUL RASHEED
- respondent
MUHAMMED RAFEEK
- respondent
HARRIS
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court