Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. ANIL KUMAR, J
SHAMSUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
HASSANKUTTY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff requests cancellation of a decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim of fraud on the court by the plaintiff. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. both courts upheld prior judgment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. evidence of ownership and possession presented. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. no standing to cancel decree as a non-party. (Para 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 6. legal precedence limits cancellation to document signatories. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. court’s inherent powers and finality of judgments. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. second appeal dismissed; plaintiff’s options to file anew. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT 'C.R.'
The plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of a decree in O.S.No.49/1997 of the Munsiff Court, Pattambi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and for other consequential reliefs is the appellant herein.
2. In the suit, the plaintiff sought for cancellation of a decree for partition contending that one of the items in the partition decree was under his sole ownership and possession as per Exts.A2 to A4 assignment deeds executed by the legal heirs of late Fathima Beevi. Certain properties owned by Kuhnjayamu Master were gifted by him in favour of his daughter Fathima Beevi as per Ext.A1 assignment deed. Upon the death of Fathima
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
