Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
K.R.Joseph vs Archdiocese Of Verapoly Represented By on 12 March, 2012 cites

L. Mary Yohannan vs N.K. Sreekumaran Nair And Anr. on 25 October, 1991

5. The main thrust of challenge against the concurrent decision of the courts below negativing the main reliefs canvassed in the suit and partly allowing of the counter claims of the contesting defendants, advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is based on the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the courts below to enter a decision on the disputed questions involved in the case without making a reference to the Land Tribunal to determine and demarcate the undisputed kudikidappu of the plaintiffs over a portion of plaint 'A' schedule property. Adverting to the materials collected and produced before this Court pursuant to orders issued as to when the panchayat area comprising the suit property, 'A' schedule, situate in Sy.No.1016/2 in Cheranelloor village had been included as part of the Municipal Corporation of Cochin, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relying on Section 80A (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short the 'Act', and also the judicial pronouncement rendered by this Court in Mary Yohannan v. Sreekumaran Nair (1991 (2) KLT 751 (FB)) R.S.A.NO.801/2007 8 contended that the plaintiffs are legally entitled to have ten cents out of 'A' schedule as their kudikidappu holding and the decisions concurrently rendered by both the courts below as if they had only three cents of land was totally erroneous, fallacious and unsustainable under law. The disputed questions canvassed in the suit and counter claim relating to the kudikidappu right and amenities attached thereto, claimed by plaintiffs, and mandatory injunction applied by the defendants with recovery of site of the structures on demolition, warranted raising issue over the kudikidappu claim of the plaintiffs and its reference to the Land Tribunal, and the decision rendered without making such reference is void, is the further challenge canvassed by the counsel.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - M J Rao - Full Document
1