Dismissed

Chandran v. Guruvayurappan

Kerala HC11 Mar 2019RSA/219/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by defendants challenging a decree granting a permanent prohibitory injunction. The lower courts correctly held that a common schedule way cannot be unilaterally obstructed by either party owning adjacent properties derived from a common ancestor. No substantial question of law was raised, rendering the appeal unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; no cost was awarded to either party.

Chandran Vs Guruvayurappan — Partition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 219 of 2005 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 09.09.2004 IN AS No.359/2001 of II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2001 IN OS No. 345/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1 CHANDRAN, S/o NARAYANAN, CHITTUR POLICE QUARTERS, CHITTUR VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (DIED, RECORDED & IMPLEADED)

¶10

2 PREMALATHA, W/o CHANDRAN, CHITTUR POLICE QUARTERS, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

3 RANI, W/o RAMADAS, ALACHANKODE, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶12

SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS

¶13

SUPPL.4 ANU RAJI K.C., W/o JAYENDRAN, CHANDRA NIVAS, PULINKOVIL, CHITTUR TALUK, THEKKEGRAMAM POST – 678 103, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

SUPPL.5 ANU RANJITH K.C., S/o LATE CHANDRAN, CHANDRA NIVAS, PULINKOVIL, CHITTUR TALUK, THEKKEGRAMAM POST – 678 103, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

SUPPL.6 ANUPAMA K.C., D/o LATE CHANDRAN, CHANDRA NIVAS, PULINKOVIL, CHITTUR TALUK, THEKKEGRAMAM POST – 678 103, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

(SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AND APPELLANT No.2 IS RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1^st APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 12.01.2017 IN I.A. No.3046/2017).

¶17

R.S.A.No.219 of 2005

¶18

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW

¶20

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶21

1 GURUVAYURAPPAN, S/o KUNCHAN, PARAKKAL VEEDU, VALLIKKODE, PUDUPPARIYARAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶22

2 SARASWATHY, W/o GURUVAYURAPPAN, PARAKKAL VEEDU, VALLIKKODE, PUDUPPARIYARAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.M.V.BIPIN SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.S.A.No.219 of 2005

JUDGMENT

The defendants came up with this appeal against the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiffs not to obstruct the user of 'B' schedule pathway. Plaint 'A' schedule is the property of plaintiffs obtained under Ext.A1 sale deed. The adjoining property is obtained by the defendants under Ext.A4 from the very same owner. 'B' schedule is the way set apart to both these properties; namely the property of plaintiffs and defendants. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs when the defendants obstructed the user of way. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this second appeal was preferred.

¶29

Admittedly, 'B' schedule is the common way

¶30

available to the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. So none of the parties can unilaterally obstruct or invade upon the right of the other party regarding the user of the

¶31

way granted by the common ancestor. Both the Trial Court

¶32

and the First Appellate Court rightly decreed the suit. The second appeal is really unwarranted. No substantial question of law was brought to the notice of this Court.

¶33

R.S.A.No.219 of 2005

¶34

¶35

Hence, the appeal fails, but without cost.

¶36

In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Chandran v. Guruvayurappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran v. Guruvayurappan

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

Rajan Ittycheria Vs Sebastian

Rajan Ittycheria Vs Sebastian

Samuel, Vs Kerala State Forest Development Corporation

L.Eswari Thankachy Vs K.Ramabhadran Thampi @ K.R.Thampi

Stephenson Vs Yesudasan

Swaminathan Nadar-Antony Das Vs Krishnan Nadar-Ramachandran Nadar