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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 42

A. BADHARUDEEN
J. Rajendran Pillai – Appellant
Versus
B. Bhasi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Arun Babu, Sri.B.Dipu Sach Deev, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri.B.Mohanlal, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, even if the land is not physically occupied by any members of the Tarwad, any single member can file a suit for injunction against a stranger trespasser. (!) (!) This is because the member's interest in the joint property gives a right to protect it from wrongful interference by outsiders, with constructive possession presumed on behalf of all co-owners. (!) (!) (!)

A suit in representative capacity under procedural rules is also permissible (and often practical with 74 members), but it is not mandatory—one member's suit suffices to safeguard the common interest. (!)


JUDGMENT :

Order in I.A.No.1771 of 2016 in O.S.No.274 of 2016 dated 25.06.2018 which was confirmed in CMA.No.40/2018 of the III Additional District Judge, Kollam, as per judgment dated 10.04.2019, is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner herein is the 7th defendant in the above Suit. Original plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are the respondents herein.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

4. For easy reference, I would like to refer the parties in this Original Petition as to their status before the trial court.

5. The plaintiff filed Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. Along with the Original Suit, I.A.No.1771/2016 also was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with construction in the plaint schedule property and from inducting strangers till the disposal of the Suit.

6. The contention raised by the plaintiff before the trial court is that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 21 cents, originally belonged to one Anantharaman and on his demi

                  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