Veeravu v. Ouseph
Case brief
What is this about?
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession. The Court held that since the plaintiff failed to produce a lease deed and did not pray for declaration of title, the suit could not be maintained under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appeal was dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed without costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940
SA.No. 447 of 2000
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN AS 80/1993 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS 503/1991 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT IN SECOND APPEAL/APPELLANT IN LOWER APPELLATE COURT/PLAINTIFF:
VEERAVU
SON OF CHOLAN KADER, KALLUR THEKKUM MURI VILLAGE, VALLOOR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
A.T. ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for recovery of possession can be maintained without a prayer for declaration of title when title is disputed.
Whether the plaintiff established the ingredients of right under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs lease deed was not produced deserves interference.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Veervu
- respondent
Ouseph
Coram
P. Somarajan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court