Back
SATHISH NINAN
Jaimon, S/o. Antony – Appellant
Versus
Sebastian, S/o. Mathew – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RSA 1128 of 2006 arises from OS 95/2002 filed by the appellants herein as plaintiffs. The suit is one for declaration of title and possession, and for a declaration that Sale Deed No.906/2001(Ext.B3) does not affect the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is, 13 cents 160 square links with building thereon.
2. RSA 1129/2006 arises from OS 82/2002, a cross suit. The suit is one for prohibitory injunction against trespass. The plaint schedule property therein is the eastern most 3 and 3/4 cents from out of the plaint schedule property in OS 95/2002.
3. The suits were jointly tried. OS 95/2002 was taken as the leading case. The appeals which arose therefrom, were heard jointly. It is being followed suit at this second appellate stage and the appeals are heard together. Since the plaint schedule in O.S.82/2002 is a portion of the plaint schedule in O.S.95/2002, the property in O.S 95/2002 is hereinafter referred to as, “the plaint schedule property” and the parties are referred to according to their status in O.S. 95/2002.
4. The plaintiffs claim title over the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1 Settlement Deed of the year 1994. It was executed by their gr
The main legal point established is that the description of a property by extent alone is not conclusive in determining its identity, and the court must consider other verifiable materials to establi....
Title to immovable property must be established through proper evidence in civil courts, and summary proceedings cannot determine such rights.
The court ruled that failure to produce adequate documentary evidence undermines a claim of title over property, especially in boundary disputes.
Proper identification of properties based on respective title deeds supported by old survey plan and new survey plan is necessary to grant reliefs sought in a suit for injunction and counter claim fo....
In title suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title, even if defendants do not contest; mere possession is insufficient for a declaration of title.
The courts erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit without addressing critical issues of property title and possession, validating his claim for a declaratory relief against unauthorized deeds.
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.
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
