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

2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39749

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J
JOY JORPHY – Appellant
Versus
THANKAMMA – Respondent


JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree in A.S.

No. 377/2007 on the file of the District Court Kottayam which arises from the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 446/2006 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court,Kottayam. The suit was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for setting aside the sale deed No.2682 of 1996. The trial court decreed the suit and cancelled the said document and granted a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property or from creating encumbrance or committing any sort of waste there in. The trial also declared that the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Hence this Second Appeal. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant.

2. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property and building belongs to the plaintiff . At the time of execution of Ext.A1 sale deed the plaintiff was aged 80 years old and she is now aged more than 92 years.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top