Back
M. A. ABDUL HAKHIM
VADAKKAYIL BALAN S/O GOVINDAN – Appellant
Versus
A. K. PRABHAKARAN NAMBIAR S/O NINKILERI KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S. No. 66/2005 on the files of the Sub Court Thalassery are the appellants. The suit was filed for declaration, recovery possession with profits. The suit was a representative suit filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 1 acre 4 cents of land in Resurvey No. 74/2A.1B in Kottayam village in Kannur Taluk forming the western part of ‘Poyillyath parambu’ and the house therein.
2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring that Ext.A1 assignment deed of the year 1994 with respect to the plaint schedule property executed by the 1st defendant, who is a member of the Tharavad, in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the members of the Tharavad, for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property for and on behalf of all members of the Tharavad with profits. An alternative prayer was made for recovery of the Tharavad House in the plaint schedule property for and on behalf of all members of the Tharavad in case it is found that Narayanan Nambiar, father of the 1st defendant, after his death, the 1st defendant had any special right in th
Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply if the property in question is not a habitable dwelling house and the plaintiffs fail to establish their claim.
For a property to be considered an undivided dwelling house under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, it must be physically connected and necessary for the enjoyment of the dwelling, which was not esta....
The court upheld the plaintiff's right to seek a mandatory injunction against the defendant, emphasizing the necessity of consistent evidence and pleadings in property disputes.
A permanent injunction can be granted against a co-owner if the plaintiffs establish their possession and enjoyment of the property, despite the defendant's claims.
The court affirmed that ownership claims must be supported by documentary evidence, and the principle of preponderance of probability governs determinations of title and tenancy.
To establish the sameness of interest, it is not necessary to establish sameness of the cause of action. Sameness of interest is a pre-requisite for application of under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C.
Ownership of property by female Hindus is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of financing sources, and establishing adverse possession requires clear evidence of host....
A claim of title and adverse possession cannot coexist; plaintiffs must establish their title to succeed in a suit for declaration.
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
