Rathikumari v. K.M.Rajan
Case brief
What is this about?
The Kerala High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging findings that a possession certificate was forged and unregistered agreements were unreliable. The court held the appeal failed.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed and parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/14TH POUSHA, 1938
RSA.No. 28 of 2012 ()
AS 116/2009 of SUB COURT, PALA
OS 204/2008 of MUNSIFF’S COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY
FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
RATHIKUMARI, AGED 52 YEARS,
D/O.C.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHETTUKADAVIL, MADUKA P.O, KOSSADY, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN
FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS :
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Exhibit-A1 possession certificate could be treated as a forged document.
Whether unregistered agreements could be used to trace possession of properties.
Whether the lower courts' findings regarding forgery and lack of authentic consideration should be interfered with.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rathikumari
- respondent
K.M.Rajan
- respondent
K.C.Madhavan
- respondent
Cheeramma
- respondent
Nirmala Vijayan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court