V.v.Sunny v. v.v.Paulose
Case brief
What is this about?
This regular second appeal was dismissed in limine. The High Court held that there were no merits in the appeal and no question of law, substantial or otherwise, was involved in the matter concerning the status of the road as public or private.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937
RSA.No. 1371 of 2013
AS 250/2010 OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 06-09-2012 OS 311/2009 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 17-08-2010
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
V.V.SUNNY, S/O.LATE VARKEY, AGED 49, HOUSE NO.6/179, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, ARAKKUNNAM, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. V.V.PAULOSE, S/O.LATE VARKEY, AGED 69 YEARS, VETTIKATTIL HOUSE, ARAKUNNAM, MLANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 313.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining the respondents from causing obstructions to the use of the road as a public road.
Whether the road in question ceased to be the property of the respondents and became a public road due to dedication or formation by the appellant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
V.V. Sunny
- respondent
V.V. Paulose
- respondent
Eliamma Poulose
- respondent
V.V. Philip
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court