Evidence-based Second Appeal challenging dismissal of a title suit. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the appellant failed to prove title and possession and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, dismissing the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932
SA.No. 501 of 1997(B)
--------------------AS.1/1991 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG OS.206/1988 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG ....................
APPELLANT(S): (APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF):
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAPPANAKKAL KUNHI RAMAN, S/O. CHEMMARATHI, RESIDING AT 'SANGETHAM', SOUTH TRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK, P.O. TRIKARIPUR.
BY SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN,
SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES), SMT.PRABHA R.MENON.
RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. KAMPRATH PATHAYA PURAYIL KUNHIKANNA PODUVAL, S/O.KUMBA AMMA, RESIDING AT 'SANGETHAM', SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK, P.O. TRIKARIPUR.( D I E D).
2. KAMPRATH PATHAYA PURAYIL RAJAN, NEPHEW OF KUNHIKANNA PODUVAL, RESIDING AT ..DO..DO....
3. KANNADI ILLOTH VASUDEVAN, S/O.KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, KAITHAPPURAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O. KAITHAPPURAM, SECRETARY, JENAKSHEMA SAMITHI.
...2/-
Kss
..2....
SA.NO.501/1997
*ADDL.R4 TO R10 IMPLEADED:
**(ADDL.R4 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1 AS PER ORDER DTD. 22/06/2010 IN I.A.NO.1137/1998)*
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------S.A No.501 of 1997
Dated this the 19th July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiff in O.S No.206/1988 who was non-suited by
the Court below and that decree was upheld by the lower appellate court , is the appellant herein.
S.A No.501 of 1997
2
sold in favour of the tenant Paru as per Ext.A3 dated 13.6.1961. Paru in turn assigned her entire right in favour of one Janardhana Poduval as per Ext.A4 dated 19.7.1974. Subsequently the said Janardhana Poduval converted the property into a garden land planting coconut plants and thereafter sold the property to the plaintiff as per Ext.A5 dated 30.4.1977. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. He had made improvements in the property. The complaint is that on 18.9.1988 when the defendants tried to pluck coconuts from the property, the plaintiff resisted their attempt. Plaintiff apprehends further trespass and hence the suit.
S.A No.501 of 1997
3
right over the suit property. According to them, the entire property, as claimed by the plaintiff, was not included in the registered sale deed dated 13.6.1961 executed in favour of Paru. Plaintiff in turn did not get title over the suit property. They also contended that plaintiff has no title or possession over the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
S.A No.501 of 1997
4
independently considered the evidence on record and found that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also found the findings of the trial court that plaintiff had failed to establish his title and possession was justified. The said appeal was dismissed.
A. Whether or not the 3rd defendant represented the Janakshema Samithy the vendee inB13?
B. Whether or not on the evidence available the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit property?
C. Whether the absence of the suit property in A13 document proves the plaintiff's title?
S.A No.501 of 1997
5
the plaintiff had title and possession over the suit property and he was in possession of the same. It is also pointed out that the nature of cultivation in the suit property in comparison with the cultivation in the rest of the property of plaintiff will clearly show that the property belonged to the plaintiff.
S.A No.501 of 1997
6
detail with regard to the title deeds of both the parties. Ultimately the courts below have taken a decision that the suit property is not included in the title deed relied on by the plaintiff. Since there is concurrent finding of fact further scrutiny is not warranted as regards this aspect is concerned.
S.A No.501 of 1997
7
considerable. These facts and contentions show that the plaintiff did not have any title or possession over the suit property.
The courts below were justified in non-suiting the plaint. No question of law arose for consideration in this appeal since it is not shown that findings of the lower appellate court are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. The appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
ma
S.A No.501 of 1997
8
S.A No.501 of 1997
9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is maintainable given the non-joinder of necessary parties.
Whether the appellant can establish title over the suit property.
Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding title and possession are perverse.
Kappanakkal Kunhi Raman
Kamprath Pathaya Purayil Kunhikanna Poduval
Kamprath Pathaya Purayil Rajan
Kannadi Illoth Vasudhevan
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
