Leelamony Vs. Abdul Rahim

Leelamony vs Abdul Rahim

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 14, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1156788

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1156788
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh
Decided On: Jul 14, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Leelamony

Respondent

Abdul Rahim

Excerpt

.....day of july, 2014 judgment the suit is one for a declaration of right of easement by prescription and for injunction. the suit was filed on the premise that the disputed pathway runs along the property belonging to the defendant only. it transpired in evidence that the defendant is a co-owner of the property along with his wife and brother who are also to be impleaded. the fact that the wife and brother of the defendant are co-owners of the property through which the pathway flows was not clearly divulged in the written statement.2. there is justification in the contention of the plaintiffs that they did not know about the co-ownership of the property earlier. the plaintiff wanted to implead the wife and brother of the defendant also as parties. the mis-description of the pathway was also sought to be corrected confining it to the portion which flowed through the property of the defendant, his wife and brother. the court below was not fully justified in 2 op(c) no. 394/2014 dismissing the application for amendment as well as for impleading. there is ofcourse some laches on the part of the plaintiff for which they can be put on terms.3. the impugned orders are set aside and i.a. nos. 2488/2013 and 2487/2013 in o.s. no. 321/2012 on the file of the court of the munsiff of karunagappally are allowed. this is however subject to the condition that the petitioners/plaintiffs pay a sum of `10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the counsel for the defendant/respondent in this original petition. the costs shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today failing which the impugned order will remain intact. the court of the munsiff of karunagappally shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months in the event of the costs being paid by the petitioners within time. the original petition is allowed. v. chitambaresh judge ncd

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE14H DAYOF JULY201423RD ASHADHA, 1936 OP(C).No. 394 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

IN IA NO. 2488/2013 AND IA NO. 2487/2013 IN OS NO. 321/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED1301.2014. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LEELAMANY, AGED53YEARS, W/O RAJAN, MANNOOR PADEETTATHIL, PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528.

2. SALIM, AGED49YEARS, S/O NOOHUKANNU, KUTTIKKATTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528.

3. ABDUL SALAM AGED49YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, KUTTIKKATTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528.

4. NISHA, AGED28YEARS, W/O HUSSAIN, ARATA MANZIL, PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI THODIYOOR VILLAGE, THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528.

5. SHEREEF AGED49YEARS, S/O IBRAHIMKUTTY, KUTTIKKATH KIZHAKKATHIL, PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528.

6. NOUSHAD AGED39YEARS, S/O HANEEFA, PANATTU VADAKKATHIL, PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528. BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIM, AGED51YEARS S/O HAMEED KUNJU, PANATTU VADAKKATHIL PULIYURVANCHI THEKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 528. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1407-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 394 of 2014 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2488/2013, DATED1812.2013. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P1., DATED1912.2013. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2487 OF 2013 DATED1812.2013. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P3, DATED1912.2013. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER

IN I.A.NO.2488/2013, DATED131.2014. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER

IN I.A.NO.2487/2013, DATED131.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- OP(C) NO. 394 OF2014------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2014 JUDGMENT

The suit is one for a declaration of right of easement by prescription and for injunction. The suit was filed on the premise that the disputed pathway runs along the property belonging to the defendant only. It transpired in evidence that the defendant is a co-owner of the property along with his wife and brother who are also to be impleaded. The fact that the wife and brother of the defendant are co-owners of the property through which the pathway flows was not clearly divulged in the written statement.

2. There is justification in the contention of the plaintiffs that they did not know about the co-ownership of the property earlier. The plaintiff wanted to implead the wife and brother of the defendant also as parties. The mis-description of the pathway was also sought to be corrected confining it to the portion which flowed through the property of the defendant, his wife and brother. The court below was not fully justified in 2 OP(C) No. 394/2014 dismissing the application for amendment as well as for impleading. There is ofcourse some laches on the part of the plaintiff for which they can be put on terms.

3. The impugned orders are set aside and I.A. Nos. 2488/2013 and 2487/2013 in O.S. No. 321/2012 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Karunagappally are allowed. This is however subject to the condition that the petitioners/plaintiffs pay a sum of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as costs to the counsel for the defendant/respondent in this Original Petition. The costs shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today failing which the impugned order will remain intact. The court of the Munsiff of Karunagappally shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months in the event of the costs being paid by the petitioners within time. The Original Petition is allowed. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Leelamony vs Abdul Rahim Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh