Nagamangalathillath … vs Porkalathillath Vasudevan on 15 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 815 of 2009()


1. NAGAMANGALATHILLATH SUBRAMANIAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NAGAMANGALTHILLATH SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI

                        Vs



1. PORKALATHILLATH VASUDEVAN
                       ...       Respondent

2. PROKALATHILLATH PADAMANABHAN

3. PROKALATHILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI,

4. NAGAMANGALATHILLATH SREEDHARAN

5. PROKALATHILLATH SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM

6. DAUGHTER PORKULATHILLATH SANDHYA

7. BROTHER PORKULATHILLATH EASWARAN

8. BROTHER PORKULATHILLATH DAMODARAN

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :15/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
                --------------------------
                   R.P.NO.815 OF 2009 IN
                  R.S.A.NO.1069 OF 2007
                --------------------------
               DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010

                           O R D E R

Review petitioners are the appellants in

R.S.A.No.1069/2007. This court in the judgment sought to be

reviewed considered the contentions of the appellants and held

that the conclusions arrived at by the trial court as well as the

Appellate Court solely rest on facts. This Court held that there

are no grounds made out by the appellants to invoke the

jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that

Ext.A1 document was not properly construed or appreciated by

the fact finding courts. According to the learned counsel, the suit

was filed pointing out that 32 cents of property described as B

schedule form part of plaint A schedule property. The counsel

submitted that the fact finding court did not appreciate the

-2-
R.P.No.815/09

evidence on record properly and wrongly held that no property is

held by the plaintiffs the south of the pathway, which is a part of

1.04 acres. The courts below elaborately considered the

contentions of the appellants. The trial court, after examining the

documents and oral testimonies of the contesting parties, held

that the plaintiffs are having only 66 cents in RS.No.66/1

whereas by virtue of Exts.B1 and B2 the defendants are holding

more extent than 1 acre 75cents. The court below also taken note

of the admissions made by PW1. PW1 testified before the

court below that the present defendants are having property on

the southern side of his 66 cents. The trial court and the

Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence on record,

concluded that the plaintiffs are having ownership and possession

of 66 cents of land in R.S.No.99/1. The trial court further held

that the pathway is the demarcating southern boundary of the

plaintiffs’ property and that the extent of which has been

established as 66 cents vide Exts.B3 to B5. The trial court also on

-3-
R.P.No.815/09

evidence recorded the fact that the plaintiffs are not in possession

of the B schedule property and therefore not entitled to the relief

of injunction. I have reiterated the findings of the trial court,

which was confirmed by the Appellate Court and held that the

findings entered by the courts below are based on facts,

circumstances and evidence. That is the reason, this Court

preferred to dismiss the appeal in limine, after holding that there

is no scope for interference by invoking Section 100 of the

C.P.C. For the very same reasons, the review petition lacks merit

and accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
JUDGE.

kcv.