IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
Peekkara Veetil Kunhiraman(Died,Lhrs Impleaded) – Appellant
Versus
Thekkeveetil Narayanan, S/O.Mani Amma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is the appellant. The plaint schedule property originally is shown as 85 cents of land in R.S.No.181/2 of Perole village. After the filing of the Ext.C1 Commission Report and Ext.C1(a) Plan, the extent was amended as 79.388 cents of land. Both sides admit that the Jenmom right of the plaint schedule property belonged to Vettakkorumakan Devaswom.
2. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff obtained kuzhikanam right over the plaint schedule property 50 years back. The defendant obtained Purchase Certificate with respect to an extent of 2 Acre 50 cents of land including the plaint schedule property as per order in I.A.No.10919/75. Immediately upon knowing the issuance of the Purchase Certificate, the plaintiff filed an Appeal before the appellate authority, and the same is pending consideration. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and paying government taxes and rent to the jenmi and making improvements. The plaint schedule property consists of improvements like jack tree, Kurukuthi tree cultivated by the plaintiff. The cause of action for filing the suit is that the defen
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting possession, and failure to establish title and possession results in dismissal of the claim.
A person in settled possession is entitled to protect their possession against even the true owner, regardless of title.
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....
Possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be protected against third parties, even without a formal sale deed, if established through credible evidence.
In actions for injunctions, plaintiffs must demonstrate lawful possession and seek a declaration of title when ownership is disputed; failure to do so renders the suit unmaintainable.
Possession is essential for claiming title in property disputes; absence of possession negates the right to seek injunction.
The appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying injunction terms without a title claim being made in the original suit.
Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.
The law establishes that possession of property is sufficient for injunction relief, even in absence of title documents if ownership is admitted.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title, emphasizing the necessity of establishing lawful possession and the binding nature of prior Commissioner's ....
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.