Back
M.M.PAREED PILLAY, P.A.MOHAMMAD, P.SHANMUGAM
Venkitarama Iyer – Appellant
Versus
Vesu Aimna – Respondent
Pareed Pillay, C.J.
Plaintiff in O.S.No. 231 of 1976 is the appellant. He filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of his title. His case is that he obtained the property in partition as per Ext. Al dated 5-6-1946. Originally the plaint schedule property was described as 40 cents in R.S.1/B2 and 3 cents in R.S.ID/38 of Ayakad Airisom in Alathur Taluk. By amendment of the plaint as per I.A.No. 708 of 1982 the description of the property was corrected as R.S. IE/1 Al having an extent of 20 and 1/8 cents. First defendant filed written statement contending that her husband and father of the 2nd defendant obtained the plaint schedule property on lease 35 years prior to the institution of the suit from plaintiff's brother Subramanya Iyer.
2. Contention of the plaintiff is that the courts below wrongly relied on Exts. B6 and B7 to uphold the lenancy claim set up by the defendants. II is contended that the courts below obviously overlooked the fact that Ext. B6 order was passed during the pendency of the suit. On the basis of Ext. B6 the Land Tribunal held that second defendant is entitled to tenancy right in the property. That fin
None of the cases in the provided list are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based on the language given. There are no direct references to any case being invalidated or overruled by subsequent decisions. Therefore, no cases are categorized as bad law at this stage.
Followed:
Kerala State H. W. Co-operative Society Ltd. VS Vadakke Madom Bhahmaswom - 1996 0 Supreme(Ker) 1: Vesu Amnm (1995(2) KLT 295 (FB)) and we may point out with great respect, that the Full Bench has followed the ratio laid down in
This case is described as having the Full Bench "followed" the ratio laid down, indicating it is considered good law and authoritative, respecting the precedent set earlier.
John Decruz VS Richard - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 814: Venkitarama lyer v. ... Venkitarama lyer's case. ... Vesu Amma 1995 (2) KLJ 656) specifically laid down that the initiation of suo motu proceedings before the
This case references a specific legal principle laid down in a prior case (Vesu Amma), suggesting it is consistent with and follows established legal precedent.
Reversed, Criticized, Questioned, Overruled, or Abrogated:
No such treatment language appears in the provided case law summaries. There are no indications that any of these cases have been questioned or overruled.
Uncertain:
Sundaran VS Mohammed Koya - 1995 0 Supreme(Ker) 158: The civil court can determine whether a plea raised by the defendant is bona fide and whether it should be referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the KLR Act.
This case's treatment is not explicitly described as followed, overruled, criticized, or otherwise. It appears to state a legal principle but without context about its subsequent treatment or judicial validation, so its treatment remains uncertain.
Sundaran VS Mohammed Koya - 1995 0 Supreme(Ker) 158: The treatment of this case is unclear because the description only states a legal proposition without indicating how it has been received or treated in subsequent jurisprudence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
