Jayan C.v, v. Premaja. a
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal by first defendant against decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff over a disputed pathway area. Held no substantial question of law arose; appellate court's finding that possession follows title was not perverse; appeal dismissed in limine.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
RSA NO. 96 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2023 IN AS NO.58 OF 2019 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KANNUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2019 IN OS NO.278 OF 2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT:
JAYAN C.V, AGED 66 YEARS S/O LATE KUMARAN, RESIDING AT "POOJA" CHELORA, P.O. VARAM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670594
BY ADVS.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S. MUHAMMED SWADIQ O.MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 & 3:
1 PREMAJA. A AGED 68 YEARS, W/O N.C.SADANAND, RESIDING AT "PREMANAND", 14B, SACHITHANAND NAGAR, NARELA SHANKARI, BOPAL 23, MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BABU ARIPPA, S/O ARIPPA DAMODARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, KARAYAN ROAD, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670006
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any substantial questions of law arise for the second appeal against reversal of the trial court's finding on possession.
Whether the defendants established a right over the disputed pathway portion of the plaintiff's property.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Jayan C.V
- respondent
Premaja A
- respondent
K.M. Muraleedharan
- respondent
Pradeepan Madathil
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court