Leelamoni v. Mohanan
Case brief
What is this about?
Appealed against dismissal of Order XXI Rule 97 application for execution of a decree for mandatory injunction. Court held Rule 97 applies only to possession decrees; this falls under Order XXI Rule 32.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal was dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed holding Order XXI Rule 97 CPC inapplicable.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
Ex.SA.No. 8 of 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 3/2017 DATED 21-03-2017 of SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN E.A NO.363 OF 2011 IN E.P NO.31/2011 IN O.S NO.594 OF 2010 DATED 18-02-2014 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER :
LEELAMONI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT ANU NIVAS, THENNADI MURI, CHIRAYAKOM P.O, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV.SMT.S.SUJINI.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS :
1. MOHANAN,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Order XXI Rule 97 of the C.P.C applies for execution of a decree for mandatory injunction regarding removal of obstruction under a prescriptive easement.
Whether the remedy lies under Order XXI Rule 97 or Order XXI Rule 32 for removing an obstruction on a pathway.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
LEELAMONI
- respondent
MOHANAN
- respondent
LATHAKUMARI @ LATHA MOHAN
- respondent
THAMPI
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court