Venugopalan v. Subramanian
Case brief
What is this about?
This Second Appeal was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to prove that the pathway had originally a width of 12 feet. The lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and denied the injunction claim.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939
SA.No. 263 of 2000 (F)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17-01-2000 IN AS 223/1991 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27-03-1991 IN OS 51/1979 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
- VENUGOPALAN, S/O.LATE THEYYALAN, AGED 37, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPURA, EDATHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK
- MOHANAN, S/O.LATE THEYYALAN, AGED 37 YEARS, -- DO -- -- DO --
- GRESSTA, S/O.LATE THEYYALAN, AGED 35 YEARS, - DO - - DO -
- BHAKTHAVALSALAN, S/O.LATE THEYYALAN, AGED 22 YEARS, - DO - - DO -
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs proved the existence of a pathway with a width of 12 feet as claimed.
Whether the lower courts correctly rejected the claim for mandatory and prohibitory injunction.
Whether any substantial question of law arises to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
VENUGOPALAN
- appellant
MOHANAN
- appellant
GRESSTA
- appellant
BHAKTHAVALSALAN
- appellant
SOBHANAKUMARI
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court