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