Regular Second Appeal filed by plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession and declaration regarding a registered sale deed dated 1996. The High Court found no question of law and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal stands dismissed with no costs to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1940
RSA.No. 551 of 2006(G)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14-12-2005 IN AS 7/2000 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27-05-1997 IN OS 201/1996 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOYILANDI
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 THEKKEDATHU KANARAKUTTY, S/O.CHATHU, PADIKAL HOUSE, ULLERI AMSOM, OLLOOR DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 KUNNUMMEL PRABHAVATHI
(W/O.THEKKEDATHU KANARAKUTTY), D/O.CHOYI, ULLERI AMSOM, OLLOOR DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.P.P.BALAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 MANIKKOTH RAVINDRAN, S/O KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT ULLERI AMSOM, PUTHENCHERY DESOM,, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 P.T.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.ASSAN, RAHIMA VIHAR HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.
3 PILACHARI VASU, KUNNATHARA AMSOM, PUTHENCHERRY DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SRI.NARAYANA P. POTTY SRI.R.SUDHIR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No. 551 of 2006 2
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the concurrent finding and the decree and judgment rendered by the Trial Court (Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy) in O.S.NO.201/1996 and the First Appellate Court (Addl.District & Sessions Court, Vadakara) in A.S.NO.7/2000, in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the plaintiffs came up with this appeal.
by receiving a consideration of Rs.17,000/-. The property is having an extent of 29.34 cents. The relief sought is to declare the document as nominal one and for recovery of possession and injunction. There is no prayer for setting aside the document. The period available for setting aside the document on any vitiating circumstance
have elapsed. There is no reason for declaring the document as nominal one, especially when the
RSA.No. 551 of 2006 3
document is a registered sale deed executed by the lawful owner having title over the property. Both the Court below upheld the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit. No substantial question of law much less any question of law brought to the notice of this court and hence the appeal fails but without cost.
The appeal is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal arising from a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of registered property deserves allowance.
Whether any question of law was brought to the notice of the court regarding the validity of the sale deed.
Thekkedathu Kanarakutty & Anr.
Manikkoth Ravindran
P.T. Abdurahaman
Pilachari Vasu
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
