Parvathy v. Chamiyar
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The court held that the lower courts correctly found the plaintiffs failed to prove possession. Title issues were left open.
What did the court decide?
Regular second appeal dismissed. Claim to title left open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941
RSA.No.170 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2015 IN AS NO.82/2010 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-I, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2009 IN OS NO.39/2008 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
1 PARVATHY, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.T.KUMARAN & D/O.CHIPRA, CHEEKUZHI, AKATHETHARA VILLAGE, N.S.S.ENGINEERING COLLEGE (PO), PALAKKAD TALUK.
2 DEVAKI, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAN & D/O.CHIPRA, MUTHUKAD, NEAR CANAL BRIDGE, KINASSERI, PALAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the lower courts on failure to prove possession is perverse.
Whether the dismissal of an injunction suit forecloses the plaintiffs right to sue on title.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
PARVATHY & ANO.
- respondent
CHAMIYAR & ANO.
Coram
SATHISH NINAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court