Moideen v. Suseela
Case brief
What is this about?
The Kerala High Court dismissed this regular second appeal against findings of jurisdiction and first appellate court that no prescriptive right of easement of way was established due to insufficient evidence regarding the statutory period.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed without costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940
RSA.No. 1148 of 2004
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN AS 432/2000 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.I,THRISSUR DATED 14-07-2004
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS 1482/1997 of II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR DATED 15-07-2000
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
MOIDEEN, AGED 62 S/O KUMMAMKANDATH MUHAMMED MUSALIAR, THANNYAM VILLAGE,PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is a prescriptive right of easement of way established as of right for the statutory period of twenty years under Section 15(3) of the Indian Easement Act.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
MOIDEEN
- respondent
SUSEELA
Coram
P. SOMARAJAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court