Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Chandrakumar vs Narayana Bahuleyan on 24 March, 2011

Kumari Amma vs Narayani Paru on 15 July, 2011

Therefore, the defendant has to confine her right to the property covered by Ext.A5 sketch. For the rest of the property, the plaintiff is entitled to put up boundaries. Merely because it may be revealed that the plaintiff has a larger extent than what is shown in her document does not matter because the property obtained by the plaintiff will have to be determined with reference to the boundaries and not with reference to the extent. For the above proposition, learned S.A.131/1999. 6 counsel relied on the decision reported in Chandrakumar v. Narayanan Bahuleyan (I.L.R. 2011 (2) Kerala 897).
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

*1. Valappile Purayil Hamsa vs Kunhamina Kommachi

In support of his contention that once the property is identified by boundary, the Survey No. and extent have no significance, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Chandrakumar v. Narayan Bahuleyan (2011(3) KLT 185), Savithri Ammal V. -:7:- S.A.No.780 of 1998 Padmavathi Amma (1990(1) KLT 187), Chumar V. Narayanan Nair (1986 KHC 507) and Ouseph Varkey v. Ouseph Joseph (1996 KLT 93). The learned counsel went on to point out that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is called for.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

*1. Valappile Purayil Hamsa vs Kunhamina Kommachi

In support of his contention that once the property is identified by boundary, the Survey No. and extent have no significance, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Chandrakumar v. Narayan Bahuleyan (2011(3) KLT 185), Savithri Ammal V. -:7:- S.A.No.780 of 1998 Padmavathi Amma (1990(1) KLT 187), Chumar V. Narayanan Nair (1986 KHC 507) and Ouseph Varkey v. Ouseph Joseph (1996 KLT 93). The learned counsel went on to point out that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is called for.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

(*)1. Smt.Kunjannamma vs Kalabhavan Studios Ltd

9. So far as excess extent reported by the Advocate Commissioner in Exts.C3 and C4 is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel that the excess extent is situated within well defined boundaries. When there is dispute regarding the extent and boundaries, the one or other which is more acceptable should prevail. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the evidence of the 1st defendant as DW1 to contend that the vendor, conscious of what he is assigning in favour of the plaintiff has executed Ext.A1. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Ibrahim Koyakutty v. Varghese Varghese (1951 KLT117), Devan Krishnan Kartha v. Kochu Mohamed Pariathu and Chandrakumar v. Narayanan Bahuleyan (2011 (3)KLT 185).
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Kamalamma vs Shibu on 11 April, 2024

21. It is true that generally when there is a conflict between area and boundary, the boundary will prevail. However, as held in the decision in Savithri Ammal (supra) and Chandrakumar (supra), the above rule is not an inflexible one. In the present case, the properties of the defendants could be clearly identified using the boundaries given in Exts.A2 and A3, while it could not be identified using the area given in the document. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that in the present case, the principle that "when there is conflict between area and boundary, boundary will prevail" squarely applies.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Leelamma Poulose vs George Mathew on 11 March, 2025

2025:KER:20270 • It is trite that when the description of boundaries is clear and within the four boundaries stated in the document more extent of the land than shown in the document is found to be in possession of a party, the mere fact that there is a larger extent shown in the document by itself would not deprive the said party to get title to the excess extent. Reliance is placed on the dictum in Chandrakumar v. Narayanan Bahuleyan and another [2011 (2) KHC 884].
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Omana Amma vs Chandrasekharan Pillai on 25 March, 2025

But when she executed Ext.A4, she included Old Sy. No.8982/9-3 also in order to justify the inclusion of a larger extent of 5.90 Ares in Ext.A4. Partial cancellation of documents is perfectly legal under S.32 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the RSA No.323 of 2014 16 2025:KER:24971 commentary of the Specific Relief Act by Pollock and Mulla 14th Edition in this regard. The learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Chandrakumar v. Narayanan Bahuleyan and another [2011 (2) KHC 884] to substantiate the point that even a person who is not an executant of a document is entitled to challenge the validity of the document. The learned Senior counsel contended that the bar under S.92 of the Evidence Act is only against the parties to the document and not against third parties. Since the plaintiff is not a party to the Ext.A4 document, he can very well adduce evidence to prove that the recitals therein are wrong.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.M.Sulochana vs A.M.Subadra on 13 August, 2025

In support of the proposition, Sri.Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arsad Sk. And Another v. Bani Prosanna Kundu 2025:KER:60633 RSA NO. 1042 OF 2012 12 and Others [2014 KHC 4291] and this Court in Chandrakumar v. Narayanan Bahuleyan and Another [2011(2) KHC 884]. The decisions cited above, do not have any application to the facts of the case.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1