Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM
K.M. Cherian, S/o. Mathu – Appellant
Versus
Ammini, Daughter Of Late Parasseril Varghese – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions on property rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. trial court issues and findings. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. limitation and necessity of setting aside documents. (Para 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. rights over the plaint a & b schedule properties. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. plaintiffs' rights regarding injunction. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 7. conclusion of the appeal. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O.S.No.596/1999 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. During the pendency of the Appeal, the appellants 1 to 3 died and their legal heirs were impleaded in the Appeal as additional appellants 5 to 13. Additional appellants 5 & 6 are the legal heirs of the first appellant. Additional appellants 7 to 9 are the legal heirs of the second appellant. The additional appellants 10 to 13 are the legal heirs of the third appellant.
3. The suit as amended is mainly for declaring that Exts.A3, A4 & A5 documents of the year 1993 of the SRO, Edappally, as null and void, to set aside the said documents, to pass a decree allowing the plaintiffs to recover the plaint schedule propert
A suit for recovery of possession can proceed based on claims of nullity of contested documents, regardless of limitations, provided adverse possession has not been claimed.
Suit for declaration and for recovery of possession or for recovery of possession alone is maintainable within 12 years from the date, when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plai....
Suit for declaration and recovery of possession - Decreed - Suit for declaration and recovery of possession on strength of title is maintainable, still it is duty of court to peruse evidence regardin....
Possession for property under void transactions does not confer title; the statutory periods of limitation apply rigorously, especially for minors claiming ownership post-majority.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
A suit for declaration of title becomes barred by limitation if not filed within the statutory period following attainment of majority or the deed date, with adverse possession applying for valid cla....
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
