Ashraf vs Vaikkilerintavida Kadeesa @ ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7642 Ker

RSA 289/2019                             1/3



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      Present:
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

               Thursday,the 4th day of March 2021/13th Phalguna, 1942
                       IA.NO.3/2019 IN RSA No.289/2019 (A)

    For information purpose only
AS No.41/2016 of the SUB COURT, VADAKARA
OS No.150/2013 of the MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA


PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
      ASHRAF,
      S/O.IBRAHIM,AGED 50 YEARS, POKKEENTAVIDA, NEAR EDAKUZHI
      SRAMBI, MUKACHERI BHAGAM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE
      DISTRICT, PIN-673103.



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
      VAIKKILERINTAVIDA KADEESA @ KHADEEJA,
      W/O.MAMMU, JANNATH HOUSE, CUSTOMS ROAD, VATAKARA BEACH,
      VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673103.

                Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit
filed therewith the High Court be pleased to pass an order for staying the
operation of the order in the judgments of the Courts below in OS.No.150/2013
(Munsiff, Vatakara) and AS.No.41/2016 (Subordinate Judge, Vatakara) be stayed
till the final hearing of the above appeal.
               This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.
V.T.MADHAVANUNNI, M.S.VINEETH,. M.VIVEK RABINDRANATH
& V.A.SATHEESH Advocates for the petitioner and of SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL,
Advocate for the Respondent, the court passed the following:
 RSA 289/2019                                2/3



                                   N.ANIL KUMAR, J.
                                        ----------------
                                   RSA No.289 of 2019
                                        ----------------
                           Dated this the 4th day of March 2021

                                        ORDER

For information purpose only Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This RSA is admitted on the following substantial questions of law;

1. Whether a suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable, especially,

when the Commissioner has found that there is excess portion beyond

the west of plaint schedule properties?

2. Whether the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in holding

that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property beyond west of

the plaint schedule properties though there existed physical

boundaries separating the properties of the parties?

3. Whether the courts below failed to consider physical boundaries

separating the plaint schedule properties from the rest of the

properties as a guideline rather than fixing the alignment of the plaint

schedule property on the strength of the survey plan prepared in an

injunction suit?

3. Issue notice.

Post after vacation.

IA No. 3 of 2019

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant.

2. Both the petitioner/appellant and the respondent/respondent are directed to

maintain status quo as reported by the Commissioner in Exts.C1 to C4 for a

period of four months.

                                                           N. ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE
 RSA 289/2019                     3/3

bka/-
                        /truecopy/



  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




    For information purpose only