RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR versus PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANADHAN NADAR KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU AND ORS.

RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR versus PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANADHAN NADAR KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the earlier decree in O.S. No. 833 of 1961 adjudicated title and possession of the plaint A schedule land only to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents, and therefore the plaintiffs can protect their possession by putting up a boundary wall/fence only to that extent; the High Court erred in upsetting concurrent findings and in determining that defendants were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars in a second appeal, so the Trial Court judgment (confirmed by the First Appellate Court) is restored.

Parties
Appellant: Raghavan Sasikumar; Respondents: Parameswaran Nadar Sathyananadhan Nadar Kanakottu Padippura Veedu and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment (second Appeal No. 39 of 2000)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; impugned High Court judgment quashed and set aside; Trial Court judgment confirmed by First Appellate Court restored.
Legal Topics
Boundary Wall/fence, Possession, Title, Kudikidappu, Second Appeal
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Wall/fence Possession Title Kudikidappu Second Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raghavan Sasikumar

Appellant

Parameswaran Nadar Sathyananadhan Nadar Kanakottu Padippura Veedu and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment (second Appeal No. 39 of 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to put up a boundary wall/fence beyond the extent of title previously declared in O.S. No. 833 of 1961
  2. 2 Whether defendant Nos.1 to 3 perfected title by adverse possession/limitation or are limited to kudikidappu rights
  3. 3 Whether the High Court in a second appeal could determine the extent of kudikidappu rights of defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the earlier decree in O.S. No. 833 of 1961 adjudicated title and possession of the plaint A schedule land only to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents, and therefore the plaintiffs can protect their possession by putting up a boundary wall/fence only to that extent; the High Court erred in upsetting concurrent findings and in determining that defendants were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars in a second appeal, so the Trial Court judgment (confirmed by the First Appellate Court) is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; impugned High Court judgment quashed and set aside; Trial Court judgment confirmed by First Appellate Court restored.

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment and order dated 01.02.2018 quashed and set aside.
  • Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, restored.