Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
Chekkaminte Purakkal Hamza Alias Kunhimon S/o Mohamedali – Appellant
Versus
Pattath Ashraf S/o Kader – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.301/2012 on the files of Munsiff Court, Tirur. He assails the decree and judgment in A.S.No.35/2016 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, arose out of decree and judgment in O.S.no.301/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on admission. Perused the relevant records including the verdicts under challenge.
3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as to their status before the trial court, as `plaintiff' and `defendants' hereafter for easy reference.
4. Plaintiff filed the Suit seeking declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property and also perpetual injunction. According to the plaintiff, he obtained title to the plaint schedule property on the strength of gift deed No.3907/2012 executed by one Mohammedali in his favour. It was contended that the property originally belonged to Thekkepediyakkal Mammed. Then he transferred the property in favour of Nellanchery Ibrahim and his brother Kammu. They transferred the property to Chekkamintepurakkal Beeran Moideen and Mohamedali. They transferred the property in favour of Vattiyamveettil Kunhimoideenkutty. Chekkaminte
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must independently prove ownership, and unable to establish a substantial question of law results in dismissal of the appeal under Section 100 of the....
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the affirmative issue, and adverse possession requires the party to set up their own adverse title and remain in exclusive possession hostile to the tr....
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and mere possession does not confer 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
