Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
VALIYAPARAMBIL MOHAMED HANEEFA – Appellant
Versus
ITTIKKAPARAMBIL MOHAMED ALI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and claim for recovery (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defendant's allegations and counterclaims (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. trial court's findings on plaintiff's claims (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of claim and evidence (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. limitation and acknowledgment of debt (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. insufficient evidence and appeal decision (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title over immovable properties and for recovery of money is the appellant. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed with the following reliefs:
“a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the plaint schedule properties.
b) to permit the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of his title from the defendants and, if they refuse to abide by the decree and vacate the plaint schedule properties, to allow the plaintiff to recover the same through the process of court.
c) to pass a decree o
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
