Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
Siniya Kanhirala v. Koorappillil Mathew
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial claim of possession and evidence of trespass. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. amendment to the suit challenges document validity. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. trial court and appellate court findings on possession. (Para 5 , 7 , 12) |
| 4. arguments on reliance of purchase certificate. (Para 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal and status of contested ownership. (Para 13 , 15) |
1. The suit for prohibitory injunction against trespass, though dismissed by the trial court was decreed in appeal. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.
2. Plaint schedule property is described as having an extent of 1.8211 hectares (4.50 acres). The plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the year 1965. He claims to have obtained title over the property as per Ext.A1 'patta' issued by the Land Tribunal pursuant to Ext.A2 order in SM proceedings. The defendants' property is on the southern and western sides of the plaintiff's property. The suit is filed alleging attempt on the part of the defendants to trespass into the plaint schedule property.
3. The defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiff. It was contended that Ext.Al purchase certificate is bad
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
