High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
KARIKOLAKKADAN MOIDEEN v. KARIKOLAKKADAN ABU - AS No. 508 of 1994(A)  RD-KL 6842 (2 April 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMAS No. 508 of 1994(A)
1. KARIKOLAKKADAN MOIDEEN
1. KARIKOLAKKADAN ABU
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI
For Respondent :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN, K.K.MOHAMMED RAVUF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
O R D E R
K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.A.S.No.508 of 1994-A
Dated, this the 2nd day of April, 2007
The 1st defendant in O.S.No.85 of 1991, which is a suit for partition, is the appellant. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers. 4th defendant is their mother. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming that the plaint-B schedule item No.1 was purchased in the name of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and as such he is entitled to get
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued before me that in this case the materials on record clearly establishes ouster.
4. I have carefully gone though the pleadings made in this case. I am afraid, the contention of ouster is not established. The appellant claims adverse possession based on Exhibit B4 series and Exhibit B3 series. Exhibit B3 series are tax receipts, which will show that the appellant was paying land tax from 1975 onwards. Exhibit B4 series also show that he was paying building tax. Exhibit B5 series show that as per the Building Tax Assessment Register the building stands in the name of appellant from the year 1977 upto the year 1992. As rightly held by the Court below, payment of land tax and building tax is not A.S.No.508 of 1994 sufficient to prove the ouster pleaded. So, the findings of the Court below that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are co-owners and the appellant is not entitled to get any equity and reservation in respect of the building situated in item No.1 of plaint-B schedule property are only to be upheld. The finding that the appellant failed to prove that he had made improvements also does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. C.M.P.No.3107 of 1994 also shall stand dismissed. K.Padmanabhan Nair Judge vku/-
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.