ROSILY MATHEW Vs. JOSEPH
LAWS(KER)-1986-6-41
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on
June 06,1986
ROSILY MATHEW
Appellant
VERSUS
JOSEPH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BURGRESS V. MORTON [FOLLOWED ON]SAIFUDDIN HUSSINGBHAY SIAMWALA V. BURMA CYCLE TRADING CO. [REFERRED TO]
A. V. B. [FOLLOWED ON]
BHAGAT SINGH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S M KARIM VS. BIBI SAKINA [FOLLOWED ON]
MUNNALURI VENKATESWARLU VS. VADDULA NARASI REDDY [FOLLOWED ON]
BAMBRANA GUDDAPPA RAI VS. RAMANNA BANTA [FOLLOWED ON]
SIDDIK MAHOMED SHAH VS. MT SARAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
P RAVINDER VS. ETHIRAJAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1999-2-24] [REFERRED TO]MANGILAL VS. GAURISHANKAR [LAWS(MPH)-1992-1-15] [FOLLOWED ON]
RAM SAHAI VS. JAI PRAKASH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
S N ACHARYA VS. G PADMANABHA ACHARYA [LAWS(KAR)-1999-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA CHANDRA KAR VS. SK PANCHU alias JAMAL [LAWS(CAL)-2004-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
NATESAN VS. CHINNACHI KANDAR [LAWS(MAD)-1996-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE THOMAS VS. GEONDY JOSEPH [LAWS(KER)-2004-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN VS. SOMAN [LAWS(KER)-2008-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
E KUMAR VS. P JOTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-183] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI AMMAL VS. KARUPPA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-304] [REFERRED TO]
R.CHANDRAKESAN VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-165] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. JALAL [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-121] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN AND OTHERS VS. SOMAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2010-9-628] [REFERRED TO]
MONIKANTAN NAIR VS. SAROJINI AMMA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-558] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Plaintiffs in O. S.167 of 1974 are the defendants in O. S.191 of 1974 while the plaintiff in O. S.191 of 1974 is the defendant in O. S.167 of 1974. As the issues arising for consideration in the suits were common, they were disposed of by the Trial Court by a common judgment. The appeals therefrom were also disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.)The Second Appeals are at the instance of the plaintiffs in O. S.167 of 1974.
(3.)The dispute relates to the compound wall situated on the southern boundary of the appellants' property which admittedly is the northern boundary of the respondent's property. The compound wall is situated on the land comprised in survey No. 976/2.
(2.)The Second Appeals are at the instance of the plaintiffs in O. S.167 of 1974.
(3.)The dispute relates to the compound wall situated on the southern boundary of the appellants' property which admittedly is the northern boundary of the respondent's property. The compound wall is situated on the land comprised in survey No. 976/2.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.