IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SA No. 230 of 1999(B)
1. VIJAYALAKSHMI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUMARASWAMI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAMAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :09/01/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.A.No.230 of 1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 9th January, 2008
JUDGMENT
No representation for the appellants. However, I am proceeding
to decide the appeal on merits since it is seen that the substantial
questions of law suggested by the appellants as arising for decision in
this Second Appeal do not either arise or are liable to be decided
against the appellants. The suit was one for eviction. The building
admittedly is situated in an area to which Act 2 of 1965 was
applicable. But the plaintiffs filed the suit relying on notification G.O.
(Ms)59/93/Hsg. dated 19.11.1993(SRO No.2078/93). The first
question of law suggested is regarding the interpretation of this
notification. I find that the notification has been correctly interpreted
by the learned Munsiff and the learned Subordinate Judge. I also do
not find any reason to differ from their interpretations on this
notification. The second question of law is one regarding sufficiency of
Ext.A1 suit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Mr.P.K.Ramkumar, counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that this
question was not pressed before the trial court and the reading of the
judgment of the trial court will show that the above submission is
correct. The full text of the notice was read over to me by
S.A.No.230/99 – 2 –
Mr.Ramkumar. I am of the view that the said notice conforms to the
requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The
questions of law raised in the context of Section 106 of the T.P.Act
will necessarily have to be answered against the appellants. The
Second Appeal will stand dismissed. No costs.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE