IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 926 of 2008()
1. T.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NELLIKAVU DEVASWOM COMMITTEE, NELLIKAVU
... Respondent
2. P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 77 YEARS,
3. T.K.RAJAGOPALAN, S/O.T.K.LAKSHMI,
4. T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. DO,
5. T.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.T.K.VIJAYALAKSHMI,
6. T.K.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.-DO-.
7. T.K.MADHAVAN KUTTY, S/O.T.K.AMMALUKUTTY
8. T.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.T.K.AMMALUKUTTY
For Petitioner :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :20/10/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R.S.A. No. 926 of 2008
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated: 20-10-2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 243 of 2000 on the file of the
Munsiff’a , Kozhikode is the appellant in this Second
Appeal. The said suit as originally instituted, was one for
perpetual injunction against trespass. It was
subsequently amended seeking a further relief to the effect
that the purchase certificate obtained by the defendants as
in O.A. 796 of 1998 was null and void.
2. As per the judgments and decrees passed
concurrently by the courts below, the following factual
findings have been recorded:-
From Ext.B1 jenm assignment deed dated 2-9-1904 it
can be discerned that there is a complete dedication of the
properties in favour of the Nellikkavu Bhagavathy Temple.
The temple tank was constructed and has been used by the
temple for the last several decades . Besides, a vedippura
has also been in existence for several years and that was
also being possessed and used by the temple committee.
From 1969 onwards the Devaswom committee has been in
existence and the said committee has been in management
R.S.A. No. 926 of 2008 -:2:-
of the affairs in the said temple. It was the committee
which was paying the land revenue for the entire properties
including the plaint schedule property. The evidence does
not show that the plaintiff or any of the erstwhile thavazhi
members had ever been in possession of the property for
several years. Except the self serving assertion by the
plaintiff, no evidence of possession was adduced by the
plaintiff. No member of the plaintiff’s thavazhi was also
examined to substantiate the plea of possession.
3. Under the above circumstances, the courts below
held that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive possession
of the plaint schedule property so as to injunct the
defendants from managing the affairs of the temple and its
properties. The said findings are pure findings of fact. No
question of law, much less, any substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this Second Appeal which is
accordingly dismissed in limine.
Dated this the 21st day of October 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)
ani.
R.S.A. No. 926 of 2008 -:3:-