SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

A. BADHARUDEEN
Poyil Salim – Appellant
Versus
Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Sabu George, P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan and Manu Vyasan Peter, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.50/2016 on the files of Munsiff Court, Nadapuram have filed this Second Appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the decree and judgment in A.S.No.5/2021 on the files of Sub Court, Vadakara, whereby the learned Sub Judge confirmed the decree and judgment rendered by the trial court. The respondents are the plaintiffs as well as other defendants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 on admission. Perused the verdicts under challenge and the relevant documents placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal relegating their status before the trial court as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’ hereafter for easy reference.

4. This is a Suit filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title and the plaintiffs are the children of one Ayisha. According to the plaintiffs, Ayisha obtained leasehold right in respect of properties including the plaint schedule property as per registered assignment deed No.94/1953 executed by one Anthraman, who got right over the same, on the stren

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top