Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
*1. Valappile Purayil Hamsa vs Kunhamina Kommachi cites

Chumar vs Narayanan Nair on 25 October, 1985

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 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Chandrakumar vs Narayana Bahuleyan on 24 March, 2011

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 7 - Cited by 4 - K T Sankaran - Full Document
1