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
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.
“a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the plaint schedule properties.
c) to pass a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from entering into the plaint schedule properties and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiff.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff and the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’, as the other defendants have only a limited role in the case) were childhood friends.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.