SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 69320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THAZHETHE PALLIYALI ABDUL NAZER – Appellant
Versus
NALAKATH AHAMMED – Respondent
RSA 670/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM TH TUESDAY, THE 7 DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946 RSA NO. 670 OF 2024 JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2024 IN AS NO.54 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI / III ADDITIONAL MACT, MANJERI JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2017 IN OS NO.456 OF 2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

1 THAZHETHE PALLIYALI ABDUL NAZER AGED 55 YEARS S/O ABU HAJI, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONDOTTY AMSOM, KOLATHUR DSOM KONDOTTY TALUK, CALICUT, AIRPORT PO., PIN - 673647

2 THAZHETHE PALLIYALI MOYINKUTTY AGED 69 YEARS S/O CHEKKUMAMMAD, RAVAYIL HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY,, PIN - 673638 BY ADVS. MEENA.A.

VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

1 NALAKATH AHAMMED AGED 48 YEARS S/O ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN -

673638

2 NALAKATH MUSTHAFA AGED 45 YEARS S/O ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN -

673638

3 NAFEESA D/O NALAKATH ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN - 673638

4 RAJILA D/O NALAKATH ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN - 673638

5 AYISHA D/O NALAKATH ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN - 673638

6 FATHIMA SUHRA D/O NALAKATH ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN - 673638

7 SAINABA W/O NALAKATH ALI HAJI, PERUNGOTT HOUSE, KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KUMMINIPPARAMBU PO, KONDOTTY, PIN - 673647 8 NALAKATH KHADEEJA D/O P.T.ABDUL KHADER, KONDOTTY AMSOM, KOLATHUR DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK, CALICUT AIRPORT P.O, PIN - 673647

9 NALAKATH NAFEESA W/O ASSAINAR, KAIPPANCHERI HOUSE, ANTHIYOORKUNNU AMSOM, MOZHATHILUR DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK, PIN - 673638

0 PATHUMMAKUTTY W/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, THAZHATHE PALLIYALI HOUSE, KUMMINIPARAMBU KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK,, PIN - 673638

11 AHAMMEDKUTTY S/O. NALAKATH MUHMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBU KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK., PIN -

673638

12 FATHIMA D/O NALAKATH MUHMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBU KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK,, PIN -

673638

13 KHADEEJA D/O NALAKATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBU KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK, PIN -

673638

14 FALALATH D/O NALAKATH MUHMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBU KARIPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK,, PIN -

673638 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff in a suit for fixation of boundary and for injunction is the appellant.

2. The plaintiffs claim title over the plaint schedule property on basis of Exts.A1, A2, A3 and A4. Plaint schedule property originally belonged to the father of the 2nd plaintiff, Chekku Muhammed, as per a Partition Deed of the year 1946. After his death, his legal heirs obtained Ext.A1 Purchase Certificate of the year 1979. As per Ext.A2 Partition Deed of the year 1980, the plaint schedule property was allotted jointly in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and Mammadisha and Muhammed Kutty. 1/3 rd right of Muhammed Kutty was transferred in favour of the first plaintiff as per Ext.A3. 1/3 rd right of Mammadisha was transferred in favour of the 2nd plaintiff as per Ext.A4.

3. The property of the defendant is situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property.

4. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for fixing southern boundary of plaint schedule property with the property of the defendants and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into plaint B schedule property or committing any act of waste therein

5. The defendants filed statement disputing the identity of the property claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants claim their property on the basis of Ext.B1 Partition deed. The original defendant contended that the property was owned by his father and o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top