Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
RASHEED – Appellant
Versus
DILEEP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues related to the appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of familial ownership and prior legal actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion of legalities around minor's property sales. (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 4. assessment of limitations and implications of fraud. (Para 8 , 16 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion and resultant orders based on findings. (Para 23 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
These four appeals raise a common question and hence are being considered together and disposed of by common judgment.
2. The father of the appellant, one Late.Ibrahim Pillai had 2 Acres 27 cents, out of which 1 Acre 77 cents was settled in favour of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant by document No.198 of 1980 (Ext.A3). There was a restrictive covenant in the said document by stating that without the permission of the father, the respective shares should not be transferred. Later, the father had executed a release deed on 21.07.1980 in favour of the plaintiff and others. The plaintiff was minor at the time of execution of the Settlement Deed No.198 of 1980 dated 16.01.1980. The plaintiff is the son of Ibrahim Pillai through his second wife. Ibrahim Pillai, later, by a separate document, transferred the remai
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
