IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
DILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
PADMANABHAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J.
1. Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was for declaration and mandatory & prohibitory injunctions, which were concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. The essential facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal alone are stated. The father of the plaintiff had plaint A schedule property of 3.676 cents of land consisting of a building having three shop rooms. The father of the plaintiff executed Ext.A1 Settlement Deed of the year 1987 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 1.200 cents of land including shop room therein, forming the western portion of the plaint A schedule property. The father of the plaintiff sold 1.210 cents of land and the shop room therein situated on the immediate eastern side of Ext.A1 property to the defendants 1 & 2 as per Ext.B1 sale deed of the year 1989. The balance land on the eastern side of Ext.B1 property was settled in favour of the brother of the plaintiff as per Ext.B2 deed of the year 1999. National Highway passes through the northern side of Exts.A1 and B1 properties. The northern portion of Ext.A1 and B1 properties were acquired for widening the National Highway.
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.