Loading...
Responsive image

Sarasamma Pillai Vilasini Amma vs Parethu Kunju on 22 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sarasamma Pillai Vilasini Amma vs Parethu Kunju on 22 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

SA No. 926 of 2001()



1. SARASAMMA PILLAI VILASINI AMMA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. PARETHU KUNJU
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :22/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                 M.N.KRISHNAN,J

                              =============

                                S.A.No.926 OF 2001

                              ==============

                   Dated this the 22nd day of March,2007


                                      JUDGMENT

By virtue of my decision in C.R.P.No.2201 of 1999 and

R.F.A.No.105/2004 I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff in

O.S.No.461/1987 has not succeeded in proving the tenancy right and

that the purchaser of the property, namely, Raja Raman Nair has got

possession of the property. The subject matter of the second appeal is

with respect to the very same property and the court concurrently

found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. It is settled

principal by virtue of the decision reported in L.K.Verma V HMT

Ltd. & others (A.I.R 2006 SC, 1975), that the second appellate

court shall not act as a third court of facts and it should not be a dice

in another gamble. As far as this second appeal is concerned, it can

be seen that the property originally belong to one Kesava Pillai and in

pursuance of an execution of decree obtained by the first defendant in

the suit 51 cents of property were sold in auction and it has been

taken delivery through court and he is in possession of the property.

The case of the plaintiff, namely, Smt. Vilasini Amma, that the lease

was of the year 1940 and that Madhavan Pillai was in possession of

the property are proved to be false and the courts have found that

S.A.No.926 OF 2001 :2:

she is not entitled to get a decree of injunction. So the factual analysis

of the material does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.

Therefore, there is no substantial question of law much less any

question of law involved in the second appeal which warrants

admission and therefore, the second appeal is dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE

dvs

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information