Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Pathumma – Appellant
Versus
Shahul Hameed – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts leading to the concurrent dismissal of the recovery suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant challenging the findings on property identification. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the court's reasoning on the burden of proof regarding property identity and the scope of appeal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession non-suited concurrently by the courts below has come up with the present appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
The plaintiff / appellant claimed that plaint B schedule property belong to one Mankada Kovilakam. One Pulloorsangattil Pathummakutty @ Kunjumunni Umma was a tenant of Mankada Kovilakam and she obtained purchase certificate No.2718/1975 from Land Tribunal, Angadippuram. One Ponnangathodi Abdul Muneer purchased the property by virtue of sale deed No.557/1998 of SRO Perinthalmanna and from him the plaintiff was purchased the property by sale deed No.702/1999 of SRO Perinthalmanna. According to the plaintiff, the plaint A schedule is a portion of plaint B schedule property and the plaint A schedule property is lying on the eastern end of the p
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
