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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 68360

FATHIMA BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL RAHMAN – Respondent


Advocates:
['T A UNNIKRISHNAN', '', 'SMT ANUSHA P SIVANANDAN', 'SRI S SREEDEV', '', 'SRI T P PRADEEP']

Petitioners are the defendants 2 to 4 in

O.S.No.539/2015 of Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha.

The suit was one for partition. It was defended by

the petitioners along with other defendants

contending that, after the parties had executed a

sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in relation

to a portion of the disputed land, it was sought to

be partitioned. Pending the proceedings, interim

injunction was refused which order was challenged

in O.P.(C) No.2892/2017. This Court directed the

trial court to try the matter as expeditiously as

possible, within a period of six months. Status

quo was also ordered. It is reported that the suit

was tried and was partly decreed. The judgment and

decree to the extent it was adverse to the

plaintiffs was challenged by them in AS No.7/2019

before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. It is reported

that an interim order of status quo was granted by

the court below.

2.

Petitioners have assailed the above order

produced as Ext.P2 contending that the petitioners

had partly constructed a house in the property on

the strength of the sale deed executed in their

favour and was about to complete it. At that

stage, the suit was filed and subsequ

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