Valsa v. Janaki
Case brief
What is this about?
This second appeal was filed by defendants aggrieved by a boundary fixation decree. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' acceptance of the first survey report, dismissing the appeal as the issues were factual and the appellants acknowledged the submitted plan's discrepancy.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal was dismissed with no scope for grievance by the defendants against the lower courts' decision accepting the Ext.C1 plan.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/25TH POUSHA, 1937
RSA.No. 39 of 2016 ()
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS.NO. 10/2012 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 18-11-2015)
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO. 50/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 23-12-2011)
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. VALSA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.CHOTHI, KADUVAKUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE.
2. AMMINI, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. CHOTHI, -DO- -DO-, -DO-
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below were justified in accepting Ext.C1 report and plan over Ext.C2 report when determining property boundaries.
Whether the decision on pure questions of fact relating to identification of property is maintainable in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
VALSA
- appellant
AMMINI
- respondent
JANAKI
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court