The Kannur Municipality vs Kadeeja. T
2021 Latest Caselaw 8224 Ker

RSA 224/2021                             1/5



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

               Wednesday,the 10th day of March 2021/19th Phalguna, 1942
                         IA.NO.1/2021 IN RSA No.224/2021(B)

     For information purpose only
AS No.81/2017 of the SUB COURT, KANNUR
OS No.556/2014 of the ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KANNUR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
      THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
      KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
      (KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION)



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
1.     KADEEJA. T.,
      W/O ALI , RESIDING AT "FAYAROSE", KANNUR-1 AMSOM, URUVACHAL
      DESOM, KANNUR TALUK.
   Children:
2.       FYROSE K M,AGED 43 YEARS, -DO-

3.      SAFOORA K M,AGED 41 YEARS,-DO-

4.      SHABANA K M,AGED 39 YEARS,-DO-

5.      SHAHINA K M,AGED 37 YEARS,-DO-

6.      NAVAS K M,AGED 35 YEARS,-DO-

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased to stay the operation of the judgment and
decree dated 25.09.2020 in AS.NO.81/2017 of the Sub Court, Kannur confirming
the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017 in O.S.No.556/2014 of the Munsiff
Court, Kannur, pending final disposal of the above second appeal.
     This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the
affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, Advocates for the petitioner, the court passed the
following:
 RSA 224/2021      2/5




    For information purpose only
                      N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
             -------------------------------------------
                    R.S.A.No. 224 of 2021
            ---------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021
 For information purpose only
                                ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This RSA is admitted on the following

substantial questions of law.

(i) In view of the existence of 3 feet way and in

view of the said pathway used by the public

at large, whether the two courts below are

justified in finding the possession of the

plaint B schedule property with the plaintiffs

as on the date of suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for both

mandatory and prohibitory injunctions

without proving the title and possession over

14.43 cents of property on the date of the

suit?

(iii) Whether the amendment carried out by the

plaintiffs to include the purmaboke land over RSA224/ 2021

..2..

and above the property mentioned in Exhibit

ForA1information purpose only title deed is legally sustainable?

(iv) Have not the two courts below granted both

prohibitory and mandatory injunctions in the

absence of prayer for declaration and

recovery of possession in respect of the

alleged excess land in which the Corporation

had already formed a pathway which has

been in existence since 1994?

(v) Whether the two courts below failed to

consider the question of limitation while

granting the reliefs sought for?

Issue notice.

Post after summer vacation.

I.A.No.1/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners/appellants.

Operation of the decree and judgment dated RSA224/ 2021

..3..

25.09.2020 in A.S.No.81/2017 on the file of the Sub

For information purpose only Court, Kannur confirming the judgment and decree dated

30.06.2017 in O.S.No.556/2014 of the Munsiff Court,

Kannur stands stayed for a period of three months.

Post after summer vacation.

Sd/-

N. ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE kkj

/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR