Dismissed

K. Pushparajan Achary v. Premalatha

Kerala HC17 Feb 2022FAO (RO)/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a First Appeal in limine against a remand order. The trial court had set aside a decree regarding a property boundary and shed construction, ordering parties to locate boundaries and ascertain the structure's nature before re-adjudication. The appeal court held no reason for admission as these issues were precisely the purpose of the remand.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

K. Pushparajan Achary Vs Premalatha — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 28TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 3 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2021 IN AS 314/2015 OF II ADDITIONAL

¶7

DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

JUDGMENT DATED 29.05.2014 IN OS 50/2011 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF

¶9

COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶11

1 K. PUSHPARAJAN ACHARY, AGED 76 YEARS, S/o KOCHUMMINI ACHARY, T. C. NO.19/2040 (1), VANIYATH LANE, MUDAVANMUGHAL, POOJAPPURA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2 USHA DEVI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/o K. PUSHPARAJAN ACHARY, T. C. NO.19/2040 (1), VANIYATH LANE, MUDAVANMUGHAL, POOJAPPURA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/COUNTER CLAIM PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT:

¶15

PREMALATHA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/o ASOKAN, KIRAN NIVAS, T. C. NO.19/746, MUDAVANMUGHAL, POOJAPPURA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012.

¶16

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

FAO (RO) No.3 of 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal came up for admission today. It is against

¶21

the order of remand in which the suit was decreed granting mandatory injunction, and the counter claim was dismissed against which the plaintiffs came up. The decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit and the dismissal of the counter claim was set aside by the impugned remand order, for the purpose of enabling the parties to locate the boundary separating the property of plaintiffs from that of the defendant. What is involved in the counter claim is with respect to the construction of a shed, which, according to the plaintiffs, will not come under the purview of the definition 'building' so as to comply with the requirement under Rule 15 of the Kerala Building Rules. Further, it is contended that it is only a temporary structure and as such no specific permission is required. There is no reason for admitting the appeal, as the remand order is for the purpose of fixing the boundary and also to ascertain the nature of the structure erected in the

¶22

FAO (RO) No.3 of 2022 3

¶23

property of the plaintiffs. Without prejudice to the right of parties to take up all these contentions before the

¶24

trial court, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

K. Pushparajan Achary v. Premalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Pushparajan Achary v. Premalatha

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

Shahabanathu Beevi Vs Shaila Beevi

Manden Ananda Alias Anandavally Vs Shri.M.K.Balakrishnan

Abdul Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha Vs Reji Thomas

P.Vijayakumar @ Manikuttan Vs Prathap G.

Parrechu Umma Vs Chandran