Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
C.K.CHANDRAN @ SURENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
BRAHMAGOPAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background regarding ownership and development disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the scope of injunction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's assessment on injunction, limitation, and right to property. (Para 7 , 8 , 14) |
| 4. clarifications on limitation laws and suit maintainability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the judgment in A.S.No.34/2010 of the Additional Sub Court-I, Ernakulam, which reversed the dismissal of O.S.No.1449/2006 of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Ernakulam.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for fixation of boundary, permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belonged to one Karunakara Kaimal and as per the Will executed by the Karunakara Kaimal, the property devolved upon Govinda Kaimal. The defendants’ mother Madhavi was a kudikidappukari of Karunakara Kaimal and Madhavi got assigned her kudikidappu right. Govinda Kaimal gave possession of the balance item of the property to the father of the plaintiff, Parameswaran Kutty. Even tho
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
