High Court Kerala High Court

K.Balakrishnan vs N.K.Narayanan on 2 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Balakrishnan vs N.K.Narayanan on 2 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA.No. 856 of 2008()


1. K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KELU, AGED 72,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V.P.GOWRI, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 64,
3. SREEKANTHAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 25

                        Vs



1. N.K.NARAYANAN, S/O. CHERYEKKAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.P.DHAKSHIYAYINI, W/O. N.K.NARAYANAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :02/12/2008

 O R D E R
                              V.RAMKUMAR,J.

                ...................................................
                         R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008
               ....................................................

                           DATED: 2-12-2008

                                 JUDGMENT

Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 414 of 1995 on the file of the

Munsiff’s Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in this Second

Appeal. The said suit instituted by the respondents herein was

one for mandatory injunction or in the alternative for recovery of

possession and prohibitory injunction.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants are in

permissive occupation of the building in question and that the

plaintiffs had revoked the permission to occupy the building by

issuing notice to the defendants. Defendants on the other hand

contended that they have perfected title over the plaint

schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. The

courts below accepted the plaintiff’s case and held that the

defendants were permitted to occupy the house situated in the

plaint A schedule property in the year 1983 in view of the close

R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008 -:2:-

relationship between the parties. Since the occupation of the

appellants was permissive in nature, they could not plead

adverse possession and limitation since it is well settle that

permissive possession can never be adverse. The findings

recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact.

No question of law, much less, any substantial question of

law, arises for consideration in this appeal. The questions of law

formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal also do not

arise for determination in this Second Appeal which is accordingly

dismissed in limine.

Dated this the 2nd December 2008.

Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

/true copy/

ani

R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008 -:3:-