KUMARI VALSALA – Appellant
Versus
MATHAI SAMUEL – Respondent
A suit for injunction against trespass dismissed
by both the Trial Court (Prl.Munsiff's Court,
Nedumangad) in O.S.No.571/1994 and the First
Appellate Court(Sub Court, Nedumangad), in
A.S.No.54/2002, on the ground that the registered
holding of plaintiff comes only 12 cents as per the
document of title. But the plaint schedule
description comes to 5.40 ares equivalent to 13
cents 349 square links. As per the document of
title there is no excess land to the said registered
holding of plaintiff. It is not clear how the
plaintiff obtained title over the property scheduled
in the plaint in excess of 12 cents. Both the court
below concurrently found that there is no right or
title over the excess land scheduled in the plaint
and no evidence worth the name adduced in that
behalf. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the adjoining property
owner had instituted a suit for recovery of
possession which ended in dismissal and as such he
is entitled to the portion of property lying
adjoining to their registered holding. It is a suit
for injunction simplicitor without a substantial
prayer and as such in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.