Dismissed

Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala v. M.a.Samuel

Kerala HC22 Jul 2010SA/818/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed this second appeal. It held that the suit was barred by res judicata as identical issues from an earlier suit were re-agitated. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the suit properties based on documents and evidence, leading to a finding of no merit in their claim.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents.

Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala Vs M.a.Samuel — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932

¶5

SA.No. 818 of 1994(E)

¶6

------------------------------AS.74/1992 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.29/1980 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR ....................

¶7

APPELLANTS IN S.A./APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. DEVADAS GLADIS REENI VAYALA, RESIDING AT NEW Y.M.C.A. ESTATE, PIDAVOOR MURI, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

2. DEVADAS VINCENT DEVI, DO. DO.

¶11

3. DEVADAS VICTOR DEVI, DO. DO.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.G.P.SHINOD.

¶13

RESPONDENTS IN S.A./RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶15

**1. M.A. SAMUEL, RESIDING AT Y.M.C.A. ESTATE, PIDAVOOR P.O., VIA KUNNIKODE, PIN-691 625. (DIED)

¶16

2. MANUEL CHRISTOPHER DAS OF DO. DO.

¶17

*****3. S. PRABHU MANOHAR OF DO. DO. ***(DIED)**

¶18

****4. MOSSES DEVADAS, RESIDING IN NEW Y.M.C.A. ESTATE, PIDAVOOR P.O., VIA KUNNIKODE, PIN-691 625. (DIED)

¶19

5. RAJAMMAL ESTHAR OF DO. DO.

¶20

*R1 DIED ADDL.R.6 & R.7 IMPLEADED

¶21

ADDL. R6: AMALA SAMUEL, NEAR FLETCHER COLLEGE, MAIN ROAD, MARTHANDAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶22

ADDL. R7: USHA PARIMALAM, -DO- -DO-.

¶23

*ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 & 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS LR'S OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 17/09/2009 ON C.M.P.517/1997.

¶24

SA.No. 818 of 1994(E)

¶25

**ADDL. R4 DIED. ADDL. R8 TO R11 IMPLEADED

¶26

ADDL. R8: MOHANDAS, NEW Y.M.C.A. ESTATE, PIDAVOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM (VIA), KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶27

ADDL. R9: DEVASENAN, -DO- -DO-.

¶28

ADDL. R10: BABY RANI, -DO- -DO-.

¶29

ADDL. R11: JUSTUS BINU, -DO- -DO-.

¶30

**ADDL. RESPONDENTS 8 TO 11 ARE IMPLEADED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 17/09/2009 ON C.M.P.2570/1998.

¶31

**THE 4TH RESPONDENT DIED. APPELLANTS AND FIFTH RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 24/11/1998 ON MEMO

¶32

C.F.5149/1998.

¶33

***** R3 DIED. ADDL. R12 TO 15 IMPLEADED**

¶34

ADDL. R12: SMITHA MANOHAR, W/O.LATE S. PRABHU MANOHAR, RESIDING AT Y.M.C.A. ESTATE, PIDAVOOR (P.O.), KUNNIKODE (VIA), PIN-691 625.

¶35

ADDL. R13: PRATHIBHA MANOHAR, D/O.SMITHA MANOHAR, -DO- -DO-.

¶36

ADDL. R14: SHYAM PRAKASH, S/O.LATE S.PRABHU MANOHAR, -DO- -DO-.

¶37

ADDL. R15: PRAVEENA, D/O.SANTHA MANOHAR, -DO- -DO-.

¶38

***ADDL. RESPONDENTS R12 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS LR'S OF DECEASED 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 17/09/2009 ON I.A.2139/2007.

¶39

ADDL. R12 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL. ADDL. R8 TO R11 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SMT.R.RANJINI, SRI.K.VINODKUMAR.

¶40

THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010,THE COURT ON 22/07/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

rs.

¶42

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶43

- - - - S.A. No. 818 of 1994

¶44

Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010.

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The plaintiff in O.S.29 of 1980 before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur, who had his suit dismissed by both the courts below, are the appellants.

¶47

The plaintiffs are the children of the 4^th and

¶48

5^th defendants. First and second defendants are brothers and the third defendant is the son of the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule properties, which consist of two items were acquired in their name while they were minors as per Exts.A1 and A2 dated 21.12.1964 and 29.12.1964 respectively. The funds were supplied by their grand father. Even since the acquisition, the fourth defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, had been managing the properties on behalf of the minor plaintiffs. They were in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to the plaintiffs, a

¶49

S.A.818/1994.

¶50

¶51

dispute arose between defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and the employee, defendant No.4, on the other hand. Defendnts 1 to 3 trespassed into the property in 1974 and reduced it into their possession. They began to take income from the property. They destroyed the boundaries of the properties. As stated earlier, the fourth defendant was the employee of defendants 1 to 3. There were some major disputes between them and ultimately the fourth defendant was awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/-. Thereafter defendants 4 and 5 with their children shifted their residence from the estate bunglow. That enabled defendants 1 to 3 to occupy the property completely. The fourth defendant therefore instituted O.S. 195 of 1974 on behalf of the minors for necessary reliefs. According to the plaintiffs, the fourth and fifth defendants did not conduct the suit properly and were negligent in that regard. The result was that the suit happened to be dismissed. The fourth and fifth defendants did not produce the necessary documents and did not take the necessary steps to prosecute the suit properly. Since

¶52

S.A.818/1994. 3

¶53

they were negligent and had misconducted themselves, it is alleged that the decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Pointing out that the defendants 1 to 3 have no manner of right over the suit property, and they are in illegal possession, the suit was laid.

¶54

Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit. They pointed out that the suit is a fraudulent and vexatious one. After having met defeat in the earlier adventure, which was hotly contested and fought till the end, an ingenious method has now been devised to re-agitate the issue. They pointed out that the description of the plaint schedule properties is incorrect and the plaintiffs have no right over the property. The properties scheduled to the plaint is a portion of the YMCA Estate, which belonged to the family of defendants 1 to 3. The suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. Even if the plaintiffs had any manner of right over the suit property, the same is lost by adverse possession and limitation. Based on these contentions, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

¶55

S.A.818/1994.

¶56

¶57

The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 9 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A68 from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants had D.Ws. 1 to 3 examined and Exts. B1 to B55 marked. Exts. C1 to C6 are the various reports and plans filed by the Commissioner.

¶58

On going through the materials, the trial court found that the claim that the earlier litigation was misconducted and the fourth defendant was negligent is not correct and all necessary steps had been taken in the earlier litigation. It is found that the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata since the same issues as were settled in the earlier suit are sought to be re-agitated in the present suit. The trial court went on further to ascertain whether the plaintiffs have proved their case on facts. On an elaborate consideration of the evidence, the trial court found that the fate of their case is the same in the earlier case and that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to get the suit properties identified and accordingly dismissed the suit.

¶59

S.A.818/1994.

¶60

¶61

The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal as A.S.74 of 1992 before the District Court, Kollam. The lower appellate court reconsidered the issues agitated in the suit and found that none of the claims put forward by the plaintiffs are sustainable. The said court too found that the earlier litigation was keenly contested and there were nothing to show that the decree passed in the earlier suit, namely, O.S. 195 of 1974, which was laid on behalf of the plaintiffs herein was vitiated due to any reason. Like the trial court, the lower appellate court too felt that in the fitness of things it will be only proper to consider the merits also of the case and went on to do so. The result was that the lower appellate court too found that the conclusions reached by the trial court are fully justified. Faced with this concurrent findings against them, the plaintiffs have now come up before this court.

¶62

During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent died and his legal heirs have been brought on the party array.

¶63

S.A.818/1994.

¶64

¶65

The following substantial questions of law have been raised in this Second Appeal:

¶66

“i) Is not the finding that the decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 is not liable to be set aside on the ground of misconduct and gross negligence of the next friend in the matter of prosecuting the case contrary to law?

¶67

ii) Is not the finding that this suit is barred by res judicata by the judgments and the decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 vitiated by error of law?

¶68

iii) Is the finding on the issue of plaintiffs title to and possession of the plaint schedule property sustainable in law. Is not the said finding vitiated by the omission to apply the correct principles of law relating to interpretation of deeds and by misreading of the evidence?”

¶69

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶70

vehemently contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to avoid the decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 as confirmed in A.S. 45 of 1978 since the suit was not properly conducted by their guardian, namely, the fourth defendant in the present suit.

¶71

S.A.818/1994. 7

¶72

The negligence and mis-conduct on the part of the guardian jeopardized the interests of the minors. According to learned counsel, in the decision reported in Narayanan Nambooripad v. Gopalan Nair (1960 KLT 546) it has been held that once it is found that there has been misconduct on the part of the guardian, the decree can be avoided. Learned counsel also went on to contend that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and have been carried away by certain observations in the earlier suit and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. A proper analysis of the documents will clearly show that they have succeeded in establishing the title to the suit property and they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Learned counsel characterized the decision of the courts below as based on conjunctures and surmises. Both the courts below have grievously erred in finding that the identity of the property has not been established. If the courts below have perused the various documents of title produced by the plaintiffs, such an error would not have

¶73

S.A.818/1994.

¶74

¶75

occurred. Finally, learned counsel contended that viewed from any angle, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are clearly unsustainable.

¶76

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. There is absolutely no evidence at all to show that there was any misconduct on the part of the guardian, which had jeopardized the rights of minors and it enables them to avoid the decree in the earlier suit. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court to Exts.B32 and 34, which are the judgments in the earlier suit and appeal and pointed out that a reading of those judgments will show that all efforts have been made by the guardian to establish the rights of the minors. Learned counsel also pointed out that details of negligence or misconduct are not available from the pleadings. Misconduct involves a mental element or wilful act, which obliges a person to act in a particular manner. Learned counsel pointed out that there is no case for the

¶77

S.A.818/1994. 9

¶78

plaintiffs in the present suit that their guardian, the fourth defendant, had colluded with the defendants in the earlier suit, so as to defeat the claims of the present plaintiffs. Except for producing some more documents, the plaintiffs have done nothing more in the present suit also. In this suit also, the courts below have considered the evidence in detail and have come to the conclusion that the fate of this case is no better than the earlier case. In the present suit also, like in the earlier suit, the plaintiffs were unable to establish the title to the property and so also the identity of the property. A reading of the commission report in this case is sufficient to show that the claims made by the plaintiffs are false and hollow. A perusal of the documents produced also shows it is really the fourth defendant who was behind the whole proceedings and he even now claims the property as his own.

¶79

After hearing both sides and after going through the records and the evidence in the case, this court is constrained to observe that the suit is a typical instance

¶80

S.A.818/1994.

¶81

¶82

of gross abuse of process of court and the suit is misconstrued and vexatious. The reasons follow.

¶83

At the outset itself, one aspect may be noticed. In the courts below, the plaintiffs seem to have placed reliance on Order XXXII Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure to avoid the earlier decree. The said provision reads as follows:

¶84

“ 3-A. Decree against minor not to be set aside unless prejudice has been caused to his interests .- (1) No decree passed against minor shall be set aside merely on the ground that the next friend or guardian for the suit of the minor had an interest in the subject matter of the suit adverse to that of the minor, but the fact that by reason of such adverse interest of the next friend or guardian for the suit, prejudice has been caused to the interests of the minor, shall be ground for setting aside the decree.

¶85

(2) Nothing in this rule shall preclude the minor from obtaining any relief available under any law by reason of the misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the next friend or

¶86

S.A.818/1994.

¶87

¶88

guardian for the suit resulting in prejudice to the interest of the minor.”

¶89

It is interesting to note that on going through the judgment of the court below it can be seen that before the courts below the effort taken by the plaintiffs was to show that their guardian had been negligent in the conduct of the earlier suit and therefore they had suffered. Surprisingly enough, before this court that line of argument is not pursued and the plea changed to one of misconduct. Therefore, one can see that a totally different ground is taken before this court to avoid the earlier decree.

¶90

A reading of the provision narrated above will show that the two grounds on which the decree can be avoided are 'negligence' or 'misconduct' on the part of the guardian. There is a distinction between 'negligence' and 'misconduct'. ' Gross Negligence' is omission to do something or doing something which he is not supposed to do. 'Misconduct' on the other hand involves a slight element

¶91

S.A.818/1994.

¶92

¶93

of intention to do something wrong. The word 'misconduct' takes its colour from its context. In Black's Law Dictionary, 'misconduct' is defined as follows:

¶94

“ Misconduct . A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are mis-demeanor, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, propriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness. Term “misconduct” when applied to act of attorney, implies dishonest act or attempt to persuade court or jury by use of deceptive or reprehensible methods. People v. Sigal, 249 C.A.2d 299, 57 Cal.Rptr. 541, 549. Misconduct, which renders discharged employee ineligible for unemployment compensation, occurs when conduct of employee evinces willful or wanton disregard of employer's interest, as in deliberate violations, or disregard of standards of behavior which employer has right to expect of his employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent or evil design.”

¶95

¶96

S.A.818/1994.

¶97

As already noticed, before this court negligence has given way to misconduct. What is the misconduct attributed to the fourth defendant. Misconduct is that the fourth defendant did not take adequate steps to produce the necessary documents to protect the interests of the minors. Since negligence was the weapon used before the courts below, they considered the issues from that angle. On hearing counsel for the appellants, the facts relied on in support of negligence and misconduct are one and the same. That itself shows the hollowness of the claim.

¶98

It can be seen that both the courts below have considered all the aspects of the case in considerable detail and have considered each of the issues raised before the courts below.

¶99

One may now refer to the plaint to ascertain the pleadings regarding misconduct. In paragraph 8, it is mentioned as follows:

¶100

“.......പ�ത�കള വ�ദ�കള�� വവണ� ട� വകസ� ശര�യ�യ വ�ധ� നടത�യ�ട�ല�തത�� വളരര അപശദമ�യ� നടത�യത�ല വച��

¶101

S.A.818/1994. 14

¶102

വ�ദ�കള�� വദ�ഷകരമ�യ� വകസ� വ�ധ�ച�ട�ളളത�� ട� വകസ�ല കമ%ഷണര പ��ഥമ�ക റ�വ*�രട� സമര*�ചത�ന �വശഷ� 1-0 2-0 3 -0 പ�ത�കള �ട�കവസ�ത�വ�ര1 ആ അത�രത� വരഖര*ട�ത�ന സരവ5 കല�കള ��ഴ�ത� മ�ററ�യ�ട�ളളത�ണ�.”

¶103

(The guardian has not conducted the case properly and he has been very careless with the result that the case was decided against the plaintiffs and that after the preliminary report, defendants 1, 2 and 3 have removed survey stones.) In paragraph 9, it is stated as follows:

¶104

“1 മ�തല 3 വരര പ�ത�കള കമ%ഷണരറ സ7�ധ%ന� ര8യ�ത� ക9പത�മമ�യ� പ�ന�� മഹസറ�� തയ�റ�� ഹ�ജര��യ�ട�ളളത�� രകകര�യ 4-0 5-0 പ�ത�കള അസല പ�ന വര�ത�കവയ� സരവ5 റ��രB�കള വര �ത�കവയ� വവണവണ� രതള�വ �കള രക�ട��കവയ� യ�രത�ന�� ര8യ�രത അവര�രട അപശദ മDല� ട� വകസ� വ�ദ�കള� � വദ�ഷമ�യ� തളള�വ*�ക�ന ഇടയ�യ�ട�ളളത�� ഗ�രB�യര1 രപഗ�സ� രനഗ�ള�ജനസ�� മDല� വമലപ�ക�ര� സ�ഭവ�ച�ട�ളളത�� ആണ�. “

¶105

(Defendants 1 to 3 had influenced the commissioner and obtained an incorrect report and the plan prepared and the fourth defendant, who was the guardian of the plaintiffs

¶106

S.A.818/1994.

¶107

¶108

failed to take necessary steps to have the original plan and survey records brought to court and to produce necessary evidence and his gross negligence resulted in the case going against the minors.)

¶109

It is further stated that the fourth defendant did not take steps to have the property properly identified. In paragraph 11 it is stated that frightened of defendants 1 to 3 the fourth defendant and fifth defendant could not come to the place and due to gross negligence and fraud the decision happened to go against the plaintiffs. Except the above bald statements, no other particulars are given in the plaint. One must at once notice that no oblique motive is attributed to defendants 4 and 5. There is no allegation that they had acted in that manner with the intention to cause loss to the plaintiffs. It can be easily seen that the allegations are vague and do not contain necessary particulars. It is well settled that in cases where vitiating circumstances are pleaded, details ought to be given. That has not been done in the present case. So also the plaintiffs

¶110

S.A.818/1994.

¶111

¶112

have no case that the fourth defendant had any interest adverse to their's when he represented them in the earlier litigation.

¶113

One has to notice that even after all the above, though the earlier defects are said to have been cured in the present suit, the suit suffered the same fate as the earlier one and the position of the plaintiffs is no better.

¶114

One may recall that both the courts below did not accept the plea of negligence put forward by the plaintiffs. Except for repeating what has been stated in the plaint, P.W.1 says nothing more. She is unable to say what are the things the fourth defendant ought to have done to protect the interests of the minors. She has no explanation as to why her father did not take necessary steps in the previous suit. She has no case that her father had any interest adverse to her or her sisters. P.W.8, who is the third plaintiff does not say much about the vitiating elements. No details whatsoever are available regarding the allegation of negligence or misconduct. Going by the averments in the

¶115

S.A.818/1994.

¶116

¶117

plaint, it would appear that the plaintiffs are at logger heads with the fourth defendant. But interestingly enough, the evidence is otherwise. The courts below too found that except for producing some more documents now, nothing more has been established. The courts below have also gone through the records and found that the earlier proceedings was hotly contested and the matter was carried in appeal by the fourth defendant. There is absolutely no proof of any misconduct, much less gross negligence on the part of fourth defendant in the conduct of the earlier suit.

¶118

If that be the position, the present suit is

¶119

barred by the principle of res judicata. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the issues raised in the suit are the same issues raised in the earlier suit and all the issues were considered in the earlier proceedings also. In the earlier proceedings, the courts have rendered decision on all the issues on merits and if that be so, the plaintiffs cannot re-agitate again.

¶120

S.A.818/1994.

¶121

¶122

The above finding is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. Since elaborate arguments have been raised on merits also, it is felt necessary to go into that aspect also.

¶123

One may at once refer to Ext.C6 commission

¶124

report. The commissioner says that the plots claimed by the plaintiffs have been shown in pencil shade in the plan produced by him. But the commissioner has noticed that while locating the properties, it is seen that the boundaries do not tally. The commissioner clearly states that at the time when the survey was conducted in the year 1964, even at that point of time the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs did not have possession of the property.

¶125

It is seen that after the commissioner has filed

¶126

his report, the plaintiffs had amended the schedule. The commissioner has also located the plaint schedule property after the amendment. He has observed that there is no road either on the north or on the south as claimed by the plaintiffs. The commissioner has also located the properties as per the documents and as shown by the plaintiffs. The

¶127

S.A.818/1994. 19

¶128

two properties are in two different survey numbers and far away from each other. The trial court as well as the appellate court have perused the documents produced by both sides and also considered the oral evidence adduced by the parties.

¶129

Exts.A1 and A2 dated 21.12.1964 and 29.12.1964 respectively are seen to have been executed by Gopala Pillai. From the records it is seen that he claims to have obtained 12.24 acres as per Ext. A35 dated 17.12.1959 from one Krishna Pillai. That shows that he had 1.56 acres in Sy. No.808/1-64, 4.34 acres in Sy. No.808/1/65 and 6.34 acres in Sy. No.808/1-66. By Ext.A1 document 2.86 acres in Sy. No.808/1-64 has been conveyed and as per Ext.A2 14 cents in Sy. No.188/1-65 . It is interesting to note that neither in Ext.A1 nor in Ext.A2 there is a recital that the vendor had possession of the property and the possession handed over to the vendees. The prior documents are Exts.B33, 34 and 35. On a careful scrutiny, it can be seen that the property shown as per Exts.A1 and A2 is the

¶130

S.A.818/1994.

¶131

¶132

property acquired by Ext.B35 by Gopala Pillai. It can also be seen that going by the documents, the property covered by Ext.A1 is lying on the western side of the total 12.24 acres covered by Ext.B35. Going by the description it can be seen that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are lying separately.

¶133

The evidence of P.W.3, the Head Surveyor, who prepared Ext.C1 plan will show that as per the survey records Gopala Pillai had never been in possession of the properties. The contesting defendants have produced field plan as Ext.B10. There was an attempt from the side of the plaintiffs to show that the recital in the document of title as Ext.B2 is wrong. Even assuming that there is some error in the description, one fails to understand how that would help the plaintiffs.

¶134

The plaintiffs are suing on their title. It is trite that in such state of affairs the entire burden is on the plaintiffs to prove his title and any weakness in the defence case cannot be of any help to him. Both the courts below

¶135

S.A.818/1994. 21

¶136

have found that going by the documents, evidence of the Commissioner and the Survey Superintendent, it is not possible to identify the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The survey numbers are also not discernible. On perusing the records, the findings appear to be correct. It is interesting to note that even after the amendment was carried out to bring it in consonance with the report, still the position remained the same.

¶137

P.W.3 is the Survey Superintendent. He has

¶138

deposed that he has located the properties comprised in Sy. Nos. 20/A2, 30A/2, 38/A2, 29/76, which are the amended survey numbers in the plaint. He had deposed that he had scrutinized the documents produced by both sides. His evidence shows that on scrutiny of the documents produced by the plaintiffs and while locating the property as claimed by the plaintiffs, only one of the boundaries tallied. He has deposed that the road made mention of in Exts.A1 and A2 as its northern boundary does not exist at all. He has also

¶139

S.A.818/1994.

¶140

¶141

deposed that the plaintiffs had purchased the property after re-survey had been conducted.

¶142

P.W.4 is the Commissioner, who was deputed to inspect the property in O.S. 195 of 1974. He would depose that it was he who had submitted Ext.A30 report.

¶143

P.W.5 is the commissioner in the present suit. He speaks about having prepared three plans and reports and gives details about them. It is not necessary to narrate his evidence in detail. However, he would depose that the plaint was amended to bring it in consonance with his report. Ext.C4 is the report and Ext.C5 is the mahazar filed by him. He deposed that the schedule shown in the plaint are different from the schedule shown in Exts.A1 and A2. His evidence would show that it is not possible to locate the properties as claimed by the plaintiffs. One fact is very clear that after the amendment has been effected, the schedule shown in the plaint does not tally with the schedule shown in Exts.A1 and A2. The lower appellate court also noticed that there is a difference in the description of the property

¶144

S.A.818/1994. 23

¶145

between the earlier suit and the present suit. On going through the records, it appears to be correct. The assertion of P.W.8, who is the third plaintiff is that both the properties lie contiguously. But the evidence shows otherwise. A perusal of Ext.C2 report would show that the properties in Sy. No. 808/1/65 for a long time has been in the possession of a stranger, who has nothing to do with the case. It is also shown that going by the description of the properties in Exts.A1 and A2, it is difficult to locate the properties.

¶146

A perusal of Ext.B6 partition deed shows that the western boundary of Ramachandra Rao's property is YMCA Estate. That deed was executed in 1966. If that be so, the story of the plaintiffs that defendants 1 to 3 have trespassed into the property in 1974 falls to the ground.

¶147

It is significant to notice that the assigner of the plaintiffs, namely, Gopala Pillai has executed as many as ten documents in respect of the properties over which he had no possession.

¶148

S.A.818/1994.

¶149

¶150

The net result is that the present suit also suffers from the infirmities and defects as in the earlier suit and the position of the plaintiffs is not better. Plaintiffs have not established their claim to the suit property and the courts below were fully justified in dismissing the suit. This appeal is without merits and it is dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents.

¶151

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶152

sb.

Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala v. M.a.Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala v. M.a.Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mary Matha Financiers Vs K.Radhakrishnan etc.

Kesavan Nair Vs K.v.Sisupalan Nair

Thomas Vs Vareeth

Sarojini Vs Dr.Jaya

T.R.Viswanathan Vs Gopa Panicker

Madhavi Amma Padmaja Mony Vs Lukose Abraham