IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1185 of 2008() 1. K.K.RUGMINI AMMA,, W/O.V.C.JANARAHANAN ... Petitioner Vs 1. K.K.ROHINI AMMA , W/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, ... Respondent 2. K.K.CHANDRASENAN @ CHANDRAN, AGED 62 3. K.K.PRABHAVATHI, D/O.K.T.GOVINDAN 4. K.K.SREENIVASAN, AGED 55 YEARS, 5. K.K.BHARATHAN @ GEETHANANDAN, For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :06/01/2008 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S No. 52 of 2002 on the file of the
Munsiff’s Court, Kannur is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
The said suit instituted by the respondent herein namely K.K.
Rohini Amma and four of her children was one for perpetual
injunction restraining the appellant from trespassing into the
plaint schedule property admeasuring 50 cents.
2. The facts concurrently found by the courts below are as
follows:-
As per the final decree in O.S No. 50/1954 on the file of the
Sub Court, Thalassery, the plaint schedule property was allotted
to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were petitioners 13 to
17 in Ext.A1 final judgment dated 04.01.1966 in the said suit and
the plaint schedule property which was plot G in the plan
prepared by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Final
Decree Court, was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The
defendant who was allotted plot E in the said final decree,
R.S.A. No. 1185/2008 : 2 :
attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Hence
the suit. The appellant contended that the suit property was not
set apart to the plaintiffs as alleged and that the plaintiffs did not
obtain delivery of the property set apart to their share. Both the
courts have concurrently held that the plaint schedule property
was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs as plot G in the plan
submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in the final decree
proceedings in O.S. No. 50/1954 and that the
appellant/defendant was allotted plot E. With regard to the
contention of the appellant that the plaintiff did not take delivery
of plot G, both the courts have accepted the plaintiffs’ contention
that since they were already in possession of the said plot, there
was no necessity for taking delivery through the court. Thus, the
concurrent finding is to the effect that the plaintiffs are in
possession of plot G of Ext.C1 final decree which is the plaint
schedule property. The decree for injunction was rightly granted.
No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions of
law formulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise
R.S.A. No. 1185/2008 : 3 :
for determination in this Second Appeal which is accordingly
dismissed in limine.
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv