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

1995 Supreme(Ker) 40

K.NARAYANA KURUP
Markose – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent


Judgment :-

Heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. The petitioner along with two others had purchased a plot of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 253/1,513/1 and 513/3 of Ernakulam Village. As per registered partition deed, being document No. 2242/85 of Ernakulam Sub Registry, the said land was partitioned by the petitioner and the other two parties. As per Ext. P1 partition deed the land was divided into six plots and three of the plots marked in the plan attached to Ext. P1 as A, Al and A2 were allotted to the petitioner. A further partition of the land allotted to the petitioner and the buildings under construction on the said 1 ands was made between the petitioner, his son and daughter by Ext. P2 partition deed dated 7-10-1985. Construction of building was commenced on the said plot by the petitioner, his son Mohan Markose and daughter Maya Markose and by allotting specific extent and portions of lands demarcating the share of each parties, the petitioner, his son and daughter had become absolute and separate owners of the land and buildings therein. After the completion of the construction of building, the Cochin Corporation assessed the building to property tax separately. Ext. P3 i



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