Dismissed

Mohammed Shereef, v. Shoukkathali

Kerala HC23 Jan 2019OP(C)/240/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Kerala disposed of an original petition challenging the dismissal of an application for an Advocate Commissioner. The court held that in a suit for injunction, possession is relevant, not a survey plan, and the counter claim regarding document validity is distinct. The impugned order had no error.

What did the court decide?

Petition against the order dismissing the application for an Advocate Commissioner is dismissed.

Mohammed Shereef, Vs Shoukkathali — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019/3RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

O.P.(C)No.240 of 2019

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.S.No.287/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MOHAMMED SHEREEF, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, SHEEBA MANZIL, PULIYOORKONAM, MADAVOOR VILLAGE, MADAVOOR ((P.O), PIN- 695 604, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SHOUKKATHALI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ABDULSAMAD, RASHEED MANZIL, ADUKKOTTUKONAM, MADAVOOR VILLAGE, MADAVOOR (P.O), PIN- 695 604, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, USADA MANZIL, PULIYOORKONAM, MADAVOOR VILLAGE, MADAVOOR (P.O), PIN- 695 604, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

O.P.(C)No.240 of 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for prohibitory injunction against trespass. He is aggrieved by the dismissal of an application seeking issuance of an Advocate Commissioner to measure out the plaint schedule property and prepare a survey plan. The first defendant raised a counter claim seeking declaration and to set aside the sale deed based on which the plaintiff claims title over the property. The contention of the first defendant is that, the document was executed as security for money transaction.

¶18

As noticed by the court below, on the rival contentions and in view of the fact that the suit is one for injunction simplicitor, what is relevant is possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing the

¶19

O.P.(C)No.240 of 2019

¶20

¶21

suit. In the counter claim the question that arises is regarding the validity of the document. A survey plan will not help in adjudication of either of the claims. There is no prayer for fixation of boundary. I do not find any error in the order impugned.

¶22

The original petition fails and is

¶23

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

O.P.(C)No.240 of 2019

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.287 OF 2013.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.2751/2018 DATED 28TH NOVEMBER 2018.

Mohammed Shereef, v. Shoukkathali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shereef, v. Shoukkathali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S. Ahammed Vs Afroz Banu

V.S Mary Vs Ratheesh

M/S.Ahcom Sarl Vs M/S.Peniel Cashew Company

G. Sasikumar Vs District Collector

Dumini Thomas Vs Tomy C.V.

Pushpan, Vs Kumaran