Alykutty v. Alice
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside a decree granting declaration of title and possession where the plaintiffs failed to pray for recovery of possession despite evidence of encroachment. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and opportunity to amend the plaint.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was partly allowed. The decree and judgment below were set aside. The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal within four months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941
RSA.No.719 of 2010
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN AS 13/1998 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN OS 457/1992 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
ALYKUTTY, W/O.KURIAN, PARUTHIPARAMBIL, VELORVATTOM, C.M.C.24, FROM VADAKKEPUNNEKKATTU CHIRAYIL, THANNEERMUKKOM MURI, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a decree of declaration of title is permissible when the plaintiff could seek further relief of recovery of possession.
Whether a decree of declaration of possession is valid when a portion of the scheduled property is in the defendant's possession.
Whether mandatory injunction under Section 39 Specific Relief Act can substitute recovery of possession when there is encroachment without prayer for recovery.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Alykutty
- respondent
Alice
- respondent
Varghese
- respondent
Jacob Vadakkepunnekkattuchirayil
- respondent
Mathew Vadakkepunnekkattuchirayil
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court