Aleyamma Abraham vs Aleyamma Joy on 26 March, 2010
declaration of their easement right over a pathway of about 2.1/2
feet width, described as schedule No.2 of the plaint and for
consequential
Search Results Page
Search Results
61 - 70 of 167 (0.42 seconds)Ratna Bai vs Valsala Kumar on 11 February, 2010
disputed portion of
pathway passing through property of appellant having a length of
12 metres and width of six feet. Item ... same pathway going along item No.1. Respondent claimed that
herself and predecessors-in-interest were using the said pathway
for access to item
Aliyar vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The Public on 19 February, 2010
others as a pathway. It is claimed by the
petitioners that the said route has been used as a pathway for
CRMC 3904 ... petitioners, the
Commissioner has categorically stated that there is a pathway
having a width of 1 to 2 feet. It is also stated that
Dr. M.J.Joseph vs Kathrikutty Ben on 8 March, 2010
well as the
dedicated land has constructed a road having a width of 14
feet. Now the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant ... constructing a wall which would
certainly reduce the width of the pathway and thereby prays
for a mandatory injunction.
3. On the other hand
Lathika vs Remadevi on 28 October, 2010
left
some portions from her property to have more width for the
pathway, which is shown as a demarcating boundary in the prior
title deeds ... property and, thus, the 'A' schedule is having
the present width, is the submission of the learned counsel to
contend that the rough
Vimala Devi vs Sivarajan on 5 August, 2010
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that the disputed
way had a width of six links left by the executants of partition ... that the said pathway was later widened into a
road having width of three metres. They claimed that the suit is
bad for mis-joinder
N.M.Alexander vs Ulahannan Varkey on 1 November, 2010
sides by the
plaintiff's property, and the alternate pathway enjoyed by the
contesting defendants, as alleged by the plaintiff ... they used to travel through the
plaintiff's private pathway, having a width of 12 feet, which
extended upto the north-eastern corner
Kodom-Belur Grama Panchayath vs Santy Mathew on 17 February, 2010
respondent Nos.2 to 28 widened the pathway encroaching into plaint A schedule
upto a width of two metres and length
Mammen P.Thomas vs P.T.Cherian on 25 March, 2010
into
R.S.A No.1271 of 2009
7
the pathway reducing it width and has put up a gate
blocking the passage. The plaintiffs
Y Menon vs Sreenivasan on 26 October, 2010
mother-in-law of the defendant,
with respect to the pathway having a width of 6 feet. Now
the question is which is the boundary