Dismissed

Jibi v. District Collector

Kerala HC14 Sept 2021FAO (RO)/41/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a remand order in a suit for injunction. The first appellate court set aside a decree against the State and remanded the matter due to lack of substantial prayer regarding boundary fixation and title declaration. The High Court upheld the remand without prejudice to the right to amend.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the remand order was dismissed. No costs awarded.

Jibi Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 41 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 46/2012 OF SUB COURT,ATTINGAL,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2012 IN

¶9

O.S.NO.244/2008 OF MUNSIFF’S COURT, ATTINGAL

¶10

APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

JIBI

¶12

AGED 47 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT SASTHAMPADIKKAL VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, ATTINGAL

¶13

BY ADV R.S.KALKURA

¶14

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶15

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHARUAM-695043

¶16

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.T.P.PROJECT, KOTTARAKKARA-691506

¶17

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, K.S.T.P.MUTHOOT CHAMBERS THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014

¶18

BY ADV. SRI. DENNY DEVASSY,GOVERNEMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

FAO (RO) NO. 41 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is against the order of remand by the first appellate court to the trial court in a suit for injunction, wherein a decree was passed against the State Government. Though the State Government claimed that the plaint schedule property includes a Puramboke land owned by the State Government, no substantial prayer was incorporated either for fixation of boundary or for declaration of their alleged title over the property. What is sought by the plaintiff is to injunct the State Government and officials therein from committing any trespass or interfering with possession of the property, without agitating the question whether it includes Government land or Puramboke land, if any,

¶24

¶25

FAO (RO) NO. 41 OF 2019

¶26

and that too, without ascertaining its boundary and alleged title over the property claimed under two documents, i.e. sale deed of the year 1996 and prior deed of the year 1986. Certain documents were produced in the first appellate stage regarding the survey conducted over the property, based on which, the first appellate court set aside the decree granted and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh adjudication. The issue involved can be resolved only after fixing the boundary and identifying the property in reference to the title deed and survey records, for which, there should be a substantial prayer in the suit.

¶27

Without prejudice to the right of the parties to amend the plaint by incorporating substantial relief and pleading thereof and

¶28

FAO (RO) NO. 41 OF 2019

¶29

¶30

to adduce evidence in the trial court, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶33

SPV

Jibi v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibi v. District Collector

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

C.v.Pavithran Vs C.v.Premakumari

Shriram General Insurance Vs Praveen E.C.

Sultha and Another Vs Thilakan

Bhagavathi Parambath Pushparajan Vs K.T.Rema

Liju @ Niju Vs Rmadevi

Ramakrishnan Vs Manikandan