This regular second appeal challenged the fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction granted to the first respondent. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower courts' decision based on evidence and survey reports.
Second Appeal dismissed; interim applications dismissed.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.No. 472 of 2012 ()
AS.98/2004 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA OS.1061/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/7TH DEFENDANT:
MANOHARAN,
S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, THONDUTHARAYIL, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, UZHUVA MURI, POST PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6:
ALAPPUZAH DISTRICT-688 531.
ALAPPUZAH DISTRICT-688 531.
ALAPPUZAH DISTRICT-688 531.
RSA NO.472/2012
2
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
==================================== R.S.A. No.472 of 2012
==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
This second appeal is brought from the judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Cherthala in A.S. No.98 of 2004 confirming judgment and decree for fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction granted by the learned Principal Munsiff, Cherthala in O.S. No.1061 of 2000 in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff .
R.S.A. No.472 of 2012
-: 2 :-
the first respondent, since there is no fixed boundary between the suit property and property belonging to the appellant and respondents 2 to 7 on the eastern side it has become necessary to fix the boundary. Under the impression that appellant and respondents 2 to 7 have put up a latrine in a portion of the suit property, first respondent prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction as well.
R.S.A. No.472 of 2012
-: 3 :-
which are not in challenge show that first respondent has title and possession of 20.250 cents. It has come in evidence that the revenue authorities were collecting revenue for the entire 20.250 cents though later they refused to receive revenue for the entire 20.250 cents obviously in view of the claim put forward by the appellant and respondents 2 to 7. It has come in evidence that during the pendency of the proceeding the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal preferred by the first respondent and permitted him to pay revenue for 20 .250 cents.
R.S.A. No.472 of 2012
-: 4 :-
which according to him takes in a portion of the suit property as described in the plaint schedule.
R.S.A. No.472 of 2012
-: 5 :-
Exts.C1 and C1(a) that suit property is “ABCDEFNLMA” and “FTN” is the boundary line between the properties belonging to the first respondent and the appellant.
Second Appeal is dismissed.
All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding of the trial and first appellate courts regarding fixation of boundary involves a substantial question of law.
Manoharan
Pavithran
Thomas P.Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
