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

1980 Supreme(Ker) 41

V.KHALID
Karthiyayani Amma – Appellant
Versus
Govindan – Respondent


Advocates:
Varghese Kalliath and Joseph Vadakkel, for Appellant, P. H. Sankaranarapana Iyer, for Respondent.

JUDGEMENT : -

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the appellants. The suit was for a declaration of title and possession and also for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaint property and destroying a boundary (Wada). The trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs had title and possession over 67 cents of plaint schedule property and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the wada, which existed on the western boundary of the plaint schedule property, restored. In appeal, the Appellate Court set aside the decree and judgement of the trial Court. Hence this Second Appeal.

2. The dispute in this case relates to 17 cents of land which, as per the documents of title, forms part of the 1st defendant's property which is 1.17 acres in extent. The plaintiffs have as per their documents of title property only of 50 cents in extent. The plaintiffs did not have a consistent case regarding the extent of the property. In the original plaint, the extent of the property was shown as 7 cents. Later it became 17 cents by two amendments in the plaint. The entire property originally belonged to one tarwad. By various assignments the plaintiffs became entitled to th






















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