Peter v. Kuriakose
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed regular second appeals and remanded two suits involving partition and possession disputes. The Court held survey plans were insufficient to identify properties, meaning no effectual adjudication occurred.
What did the court decide?
Regular second appeals allowed by way of remand; judgment and decree of lower courts set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 26TH KARTHIKA,
1945
RSA NO. 147 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AS 241/2009 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 269/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS/:
1 KURIAKOSE
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. ITTOOPU, OLANGATTU HOUSE, RESIDING AT
EDAKKERIL PERINGALA,P.O., PINARMUNDA KARA,
KUNNATHUNADU.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in failing to remit the suits after finding the properties were not identified by the Commissioner?
Whether the survey plans Exts.C1(a) and C2(a) are incomplete and insufficient to identify the properties for re-fixation?
Whether there was a proper trial and effectual adjudication of the lis due to insufficiency of survey plans?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kuriakose
- respondent
Shaji
- appellant
Peter
- respondent
Kurikose
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court