Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
THOMAS JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
TOMY AUGUSTINE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for easement requires consideration of possession. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. possession of property suffices for easement rights. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. first appellate court erred in dismissing the claim. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. regular second appeal allowed. (Para 14) |
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff in O.S. No.149/2007 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Pala, is the appellant herein.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
The appellant/plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 10.08.2004 with his brother Thallikkunnel Jose Joseph for conveying the plaint schedule property. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property lies in the Western side of the plaint schedule property and that the prior owner of both the properties was one by one Parathottathil Ithaque and after his death, the property was owned and possessed by his two sons; Joy P. Issac and Baby P. Issac and the property were lying contiguously. In 2002, the plaint item No.1 was purchased by the plaintiff from Baby P. Issac and the defendant purchased the property from Joy P. Issac. Item No.3 is a pathway having a width of 3.5 feet which starts from the eastern side of the waiting shed and th
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
