Rajalakshmi vs Vattamkulam on 25 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA.No. 85 of 2005(B)


1. RAJALAKSHMI, D/O.MELEPPAT BHARATHI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VATTAMKULAM, PANCHAYATH, KULANGARA
                       ...       Respondent

2. VATTAMKULAM PANCHAYATH KULANGARA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :25/11/2008

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                -------------------------------
                        R.S.A No: 85 OF 2005
                -------------------------------
                Dated this the 25th November, 2008.

                             JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.136/1988 on the file of the Munsiff-

Magistrate Court, Ponnani is the appellant in the second appeal.

The said suit was for recovery of possession of the plaint A schedule

property having a measurement of 18 feet x 4 feet alleged to be

part of the plaint B schedule property admeasuring 5 = cents and

for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the

encroaching structures in the plaint A schedule property. The

plaintiff-Rajalakshmi claimed to be an allottee of the plaint B

schedule property as per Ext. X1 partition deed dated 25.6.1987.

The allottees under Ext.X1 partition deed in turn obtained the

properties for their tavazhy as per the judgment and decree in

O.S.310/1946 evidenced by Ext.B1 final decree dated 30.1.1948.

2. Both the courts have held that the plaint A schedule

property extends only up to the line CB in Ext.C4 plan prepared by

-2-
RSA 85/2005

the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the trial court. The plaint B

schedule property in O.S.136/1988 has been identified by the

Commissioner as plot ABCD in Ext.C4 plan. If so, the allegation of

the plaintiff that a portion of the basement constructed by the

defendants in their northern property encroaches into the plaint B

schedule property was rightly rejected by the courts below. The

finding recorded by the courts below is a pure finding of fact, so

that there cannot be any question of law, much less any substantial

question of law to be considered in this second appeal, which is

accordingly dismissed in limine.

V. RAMKUMAR
JUDGE
jj