K A ABOOBACKER Vs. N GIRIJA
LAWS(KER)-1995-1-25
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on
January 12,1995
K.A.ABOOBACKER
Appellant
VERSUS
N.GIRIJA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
S.M. SULTAN ROWTHAR VS. KOTHANDARAMA NAIDU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-3-135] [REFERRED TO]VANNATHAM VEETTIL MOIDU VS. VANNATHAM VEETTIL YOONUS [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-283] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAMAN VS. JELHAMA [LAWS(MAD)-1995-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
K S R SRIRANGARAJA VS. PONNIAH THEVAR [LAWS(MAD)-2000-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN MURTI VS. THANKAMMA SEBASTIAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN VS. RASHID [LAWS(KER)-2009-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
NABEESA ABDUL KHADER VS. SURESH KURIAN [LAWS(KER)-2009-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSOODANAN VS. SARASWATHY [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
A RAJAN VS. R C MURUKESAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-255] [REFERRED TO]
V.M. ANDREWS VS. DAISY PUNNAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH @ SUNNY AND ORS VS. RENNY THOMAS K AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2013-10-197] [REFERRED]
SIVANKUTTY VS. VIKRAMAN [LAWS(KER)-2011-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner who unsuccessfully questioned the title of the respondent/landlord before the courts below has preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
(2.)The petitioner was originally a tenant under Mohammed and his wife Asyamma paying Rs. 180/- and Rs. 270/- respectively as rent towards the schedule building and later the property was transferred to Balakrishnan, the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2755 of 1994 and Girija, the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2754 of 1994 by two different deeds of sale both dated 14-5-1984, which stand marked as Exts. A5 and A6.
(3.)According to the petitioner the sale deeds executed by Mohammed and his wife Asyamma were sham and nominal and they were executed only with a view to see that the petitioner is evicted from the schedule building. In support of his contention he relied on certain circumstances namely that the names of the transferees were not shown as the owners of the schedule building in the property tax assessment list for the years 1987-1988 to 1991-1992. It is also his further contention that the transferor earlier filed a petition to get him evicted from the schedule building and having failed has transferred his property to the respondents.
;
(2.)The petitioner was originally a tenant under Mohammed and his wife Asyamma paying Rs. 180/- and Rs. 270/- respectively as rent towards the schedule building and later the property was transferred to Balakrishnan, the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2755 of 1994 and Girija, the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2754 of 1994 by two different deeds of sale both dated 14-5-1984, which stand marked as Exts. A5 and A6.
(3.)According to the petitioner the sale deeds executed by Mohammed and his wife Asyamma were sham and nominal and they were executed only with a view to see that the petitioner is evicted from the schedule building. In support of his contention he relied on certain circumstances namely that the names of the transferees were not shown as the owners of the schedule building in the property tax assessment list for the years 1987-1988 to 1991-1992. It is also his further contention that the transferor earlier filed a petition to get him evicted from the schedule building and having failed has transferred his property to the respondents.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.