SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Ker) 411

K.A.MOHAMMED SHAFI
Jose Kuruvinakunnel – Appellant
Versus
A. T. Jose – Respondent


Judgment :-

The petitioner in O.P. (Misc.) 7/85 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala is the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner was the 4th plaintiff in O.S. 68/83 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala seeking a decree to set aside certain documents and for mandatory injunction directing defendants 7 and 8 to restore the plaint schedule item No. 1 road to its original condition. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants 4 and 6 who are the parents of the 5th defendant, who is the owner of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties influenced defendants 2 and 3, the Panchayat President and the Executive Officer respectively to deviate Item No. 1 public road through item No. 2 property and to appropriate item No. 1 property in the place of item No. 2 property and for that purpose defendants 2 and 3 manipulated certain documents such as minutes book of the Panchayat Committee etc. After trial the Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit.

3. The revision petitioner herein filed O.P. (Misc.) 7/85 before the Munsiff's Court, Pala under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent herein who is the 3rd defendant in O.S. 68/83 alleging that he had manipulat














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top