K.T.SANKARAN
Chandrakumar – Appellant
Versus
Narayana Bahuleyan – Respondent
1. The defendant in O.S.No.882 of 1991 on the file of the court of the First Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, who succeeded in the suit, but lost in A.S.No.1151 of 1994, Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, is the appellant.
2. The suit was filed by the respondents for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property, for injunction and for fixation of boundary. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property belonged to Raghava Panicker as per Exhibit A2 partition deed of the year 1950. Raghava Panicker and his wife Ammukutty executed Exhibit A1 settlement deed dated 6.2.1974 in favour of the plaintiffs, who are respectively their son in law and daughter. The plaint schedule property is item No.2 in Exhibit A1 settlement deed. The property of the defendant lies on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. In Exhibit A1, the extent of the property is shown as 5.67 Ares. In the plaint schedule, the extent was shown as 17.5 cents which was later amended as 18.5 cents. The plaintiffs alleged that on 27.10.1991, the defendant tried to demolish the southern boundary and to trespass upon the plaint schedule property.
3. In the written statement fil
4. Kannan vs. Kannan (1964 KLT 228)
7. Kumaran Krishnan vs. Ulahannan Mathai (1957 KLT 42)
8. Savarimuthu Nadar Chellayan Nadar (1957 KLT 825)
9. Krishnamurthi Iyer vs. Janaki Amma (1957 KLT 886)
1. Kannan Nambiar vs. Narayani Amma and others (1984 KLT 855)
2. Devi Das vs. Mohan Lal (AIR 1982 SC 1213)
3. Krishnan Assari vs. Parameswaran Pillai (1989 (1) KLT 63)].
10. Savithri Ammal vs. Padmavathi Amma (1990 (1) KLT 187)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.