This regular second appeal was dismissed in limine as no question of law arose. The court affirmed that the lower courts correctly held that declaratory relief regarding purampoke land could not be granted without the government as a party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RSA.No. 1189 of 2008() ---------------------AS.202/2005 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.311/2001 of II ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDAT:-
BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S):
GOPALAN, S/O. APPAVU, T.C. 26/1358, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANAVILA ROAD, SECRETARIAT, WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A.No.1189 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
The 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.311/2001 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants in this second appeal. The said suit was one for declaration of the possessory right of the plaintiffs and for recovery of possession with mesne profits and for perpetual injunction as against the 1st defendantGopalan.
2
R.S.A.No.1189 of 2008
a portion of the building standing in the plaint A schedule property, the courts below held that the plaintiff's claim that the 1st defendant was her tenant has not been substantiated and that the 1st defendant was in possession of the plaint B Schedule Property in his own right for the past more than 15 years. Hence recovery of possession of the plaint B Schedule Property was disallowed. The courts below, however, declared the possessory right of the plaintiff over the plaint C Schedule Property which are portions of two rooms of the building situated in the plaint A schedule property. The said finding concurrently recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be wrong. Since the land admittedly belong to the Government, the plaintiff's claim for establishing her possessory right over the same could not be granted without the Government on the party array.
3
R.S.A.No.1189 of 2008
It is, however, clarified that this will not preclude the plaintiff from filing a properly instituted suit with the Government on the party array for declaration of his possessory right, if the plaintiff is so entitled.
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal arises any question of law or substantial question of law considering the government was not a party to the suit regarding purampoke land.
M. Ammini & Rejendran
Gopalan
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
