Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)Neelakantan Damodaran Namboori And ... vs Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai And ... on 19 May, 1958
5. Learned counsel appearing for appellants
argued that there is no evidence to prove that
S.A.No.49/1994 5
the tarwad obtained plaint schedule property on
lease so as to divide the same under Ext.A1
partition deed. Relying on the decision of Apex
court in Neelakantan Damodaran Namboori v.
Velayudhan Pillai (AIR 1958 832) and this Court
in Sarojini v. Santha Trading Co. (1969 KLT 412)
it was argued that mere recital in Ext.A1 will
not cloth respondents with title to the
property unless there was pre-existing title
and as there is no evidence to prove that there
was a lease in favour of the tarwad, recitals in
Ext.A1 will not give title to tarwad of
respondents and therefore finding of the first
appellate court is unsustainable.
Baby Chemparathy, President, The ... vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 27 June, 2002
Learned
counsel relying on the decision of Apex court in
Mathew v. Taluk Land Board (1979 KLT 601) and in
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v. Parambur
Mariakutty Umma ((2002) 2 SCC 417) argued that
under section 72K of Kerala Land Reforms Act,
purchase certificate is a conclusive title and
S.A.No.49/1994 6
though in the plaint it is alleged that Exts.B3
and B4 purchase certificates were obtained by
fraud, details of the fraud as contemplated in
the Code of Civil Procedure were not pleaded and
no evidence was also adduced to prove that
Exts.B3 and B4 are vitiated by fraud and in such
circumstance, they are valid and binding on all
including plaintiffs and therefore finding of
first appellate court that plaintiffs have title
to plaint schedule property is unsustainable and
therefore decree is to be set aside.
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty And Anr vs Parambur Mariakutty Umma And Others on 8 February, 2000
Learned
counsel relying on the decision of Apex court in
Mathew v. Taluk Land Board (1979 KLT 601) and in
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v. Parambur
Mariakutty Umma ((2002) 2 SCC 417) argued that
under section 72K of Kerala Land Reforms Act,
purchase certificate is a conclusive title and
S.A.No.49/1994 6
though in the plaint it is alleged that Exts.B3
and B4 purchase certificates were obtained by
fraud, details of the fraud as contemplated in
the Code of Civil Procedure were not pleaded and
no evidence was also adduced to prove that
Exts.B3 and B4 are vitiated by fraud and in such
circumstance, they are valid and binding on all
including plaintiffs and therefore finding of
first appellate court that plaintiffs have title
to plaint schedule property is unsustainable and
therefore decree is to be set aside.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1