The High Court of Kerala dismissed a second appeal filed by the mortgagor/chief defendant. The court held that there were no substantial questions of law and the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff held the right to equity of redemption and was entitled to possession were correct.
The second appeal is dismissed. 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933
SA.No. 883 of 1999(E)
-------------------------AS.209/1990 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM OS.504/1986 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT
-------------------------------------------------
2. C.M.OMANAKUTTAN NAIR, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, MATTATHIL VEEDU, ITHITHANAM MURI, KURICHY VILLAGE.
3. C.G.PANKEYAMMA, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
4. C.M.VIJAYAMMA, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
5. C.M.SANTHAMMA, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
6. C.M.RUGMINY, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
7. C.M.SUMATHY KUTTY, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
8. C.M.RAJAMMA, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
9. C.M.RADHAMANY, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR -DO- -DO-
BY SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL
svs
..........2/-...
...2...
SA.NO.883/1999
RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS 1,3,4 ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 PLAINTIFF DCT. 3 TO 11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. JOSHUA JOSEPH, PUTHENVELIL VEEDU, ITHITHANAM MURI, KURICHY VILLAGE.
3. SARADA PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, ITHITHANAM MURI, KURICHY VILLAGE.
4. KUNJAMMA, PATTADATHARA, PALLAM KARA,NEAR PAKKIL JUNCTION, NATTAKOM.
5. GRACY, PATTADATHARA, PALLAM KARA,NEAR PAKKIL JUNCTION, NATTAKOM.
6. MOLLY, PATTADATHARA, PALLAM KARA,NEAR PAKKIL JUNCTION, NATTAKOM.
7. MERCY,PATTADATHARA, PALLAM KARA,NEAR PAKKIL JUNCTION, NATTAKOM.
8. JOY,PATTADATHARA, PALLAM KARA,NEAR PAKKIL JUNCTION, NATTAKOM.
9. CHEMBAKAKUTTY AMMA, W/O. KARUANAKARAN NAIR, 'SREE SAILAM', PADINJARE CHIRAPARAMBIL, MADAPPALLICHIRA, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O. ITHITHANAM KARA, KURICHY VILLAGE.
10. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. -DO- -DO-
11. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. -DO- -DO-
12. MOHANA KUMARAN NAIR,S/O. -DO- -DO-
13. RAJAKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. -DO- -DO-
14. RANJAKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. -DO- -DO-
15. OMANAKUMARI, D/O. -DO- -DO-
svs
........3/-....
...3...
SA.NO.883/1999
16. SREEKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. -DO- -DO-
17. PRASANNAKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. -DO- -DO-
18. JAYASREE,D/O. -DO- -DO-
19. AMTAL,S/O. -DO- -DO-
R1, 9 TO R16 BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOSE
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.2477/1999
IN
S.A. NO.883/1999
DISMISSED
25/05/2011
SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
svs
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
S.A.No. 883 of 1999
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011
JUDGMENT
The first defendant in O.S.No.504 of 1986 before the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry, who has suffered a decree for redemption at the hands of both the courts below is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.
S.A.No. 883 of 1999 2
S.A.No. 883 of 1999 3
material before it on the basis of contentions raised, found that
no grounds were made out to interfere with the judgment and
decree of the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
questions of law arises for consideration:
S.A.No. 883 of 1999 4
date of Ext.A6 namely, 03.03.1976.
6 . At the time of argument the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant raised mainly two contentions for consideration. One of the contention is that the possession of the defendant could not be traced to Ext.A9 and that the possession was under a different arrangement and he is entitled to fixity of tenure. The second contention is that the document relied on by the plaintiff does not enable him to redeem the property or in otherwards contention is that there is no right of redemption mentioned in his document. Therefore, it is contented that both the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit and have erred both on facts and in law.
S.A.No. 883 of 1999 5
granted under Ext.A5. The other contention is that since the claim of tenancy right had been given up at the trial stage itself. Further, the first defendant was unable to prove that he was in possession by virtue of some other arrangement as claimed by the appellant.
S.A.No. 883 of 1999 6
error in holding so.
S.A.No. 883 of 1999 7
consideration in the second appeal. There is nothing to show that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record.
The result is that the appeal is without merits and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so. There will be no order as to costs.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
ln
MADHAVAN NAIR LRs
KARUNAKARAN NAIR LRs
P.BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
