Back
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
Arikkulangara Kunhikkeloth Righesh Babu – Appellant
Versus
Pullanhodan Kunnoth Gopalan Nambiar – Respondent
The legal document indicates that the case discusses principles related to property disputes, possession, and the necessity of proving physical boundaries rather than relying solely on survey plans. These principles are often referenced in later cases concerning the identification and boundaries of properties, the distinction between possession and title, and the procedural aspects of framing issues and paying court fees. Specifically, the discussion on the importance of physical boundaries for establishing possession and the proper remedy of filing a boundary fixation suit may serve as a reference point in subsequent property and possession disputes. Additionally, the clarification that a plaintiff must establish possession independently of title, and that issues regarding title should be properly framed and tried, may be cited in future cases addressing similar procedural and substantive aspects of property litigation.
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
1. Defendants 5 and 6 challenge the order of remand passed by the District Judge, Thalassery in A.S. No. 284 of 2005, in which a cross appeal had been filed.
2. In a partition that took place in 1956 plaint schedule item No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute) was kept in common for the benefit of the tavazhi of the plaintiffs. It is possessed and managed by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other members of the tavazhi. Plaint schedule item No. 2 is the northern property adjoining the property in dispute. It is in the possession of the defendants. There is a boundary wall separating the two properties. The defendants trespassed into the property in dispute and made some constructions in their attempt to put up a wall enclosing it. But the attempt was defeated by the plaintiffs and they are still in possession of the property. On these allegations the plaintiffs prayed for a perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendants from trespassing into the property in dispute and for a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the constructions they made in it. The defendants contended that the property in dispute is part of the
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
