K.K.Rugmini Amma vs K.K.Rohini Amma on 6 January, 2008

0
125
Kerala High Court
K.K.Rugmini Amma vs K.K.Rohini Amma on 6 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *