In an appeal against judgments in a suit for injunction regarding land boundary and possession from Kerala Sub Court and Munsiff Court. The High Court upheld lower court findings on property identification based on survey plans and evidence. The second appeal was dismissed with no orders on costs.
Second appeal 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 N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/23RD MAGHA 1934
SA.No. 297 of 1996 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS.11/1991 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 28-02-1995
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN 0S.52/1987 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 27-10-1990
APPELLANT(S):
1. POYIL KOTTAN, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, ERAMAM, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. (DIED)
2. ALINKEEL DAMODARAN, S/O. KOTTEN, ERAMAM, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
ADDL. APPELLANTS
3. ALINKEEL LAKSHMI, CHARAL PALLA, ERAMAM, MATHAMANGALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT
4. LAXMANAN CHARALPALLA, ERAMAM, MATHAMANGALAM P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT
5. ALINKEEL JANAKI, W/O.KANNAN, PANAPUZHA P.O., M.M. BAZAR (VIA) KANNUR DISTRICT
6. ALINKEEL MADHAVI, W/O. NARAYANAN, CHARAL PALLA, ERAMAM, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
7. ALINKEEL PREMA, W/O. SHAJI, CHARAL PALLA, ERAMAM, MATHAMANGALAM P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT.
ADDL. APPELLANTS 3 TO 7 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED A1 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.9.2005 IN I.A. NO.1869/2005
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
...2
SA.No. 297 of 1996 (B)
-2-
RESPONDENT(S):
1. EDAKKEPRATH VEETIL KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, D/O. PARVATHI AMMA, CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. (DIED)
2. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3. VIJAYAN, S/O. LATE KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT.
4. E.V. VIJAYA LAKSHMI TEACHER, KAVINNISERRY HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT
ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED AS LRS OF SOLE RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 8.11.2006 IN I.A. NO.1791/2006
ADDL. RESPONDENT 4 ALSO IMPLEADED AS LRS OF SOLE RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 8.11.2006 IN I.A. NO.15344/06
ADDL.R2 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR
SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JJJ
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
S.A. No: 297 of 1996
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Defendants in a suit for injunction are the appellants. Ext.C2 is the Commissioner's plan which was received in evidence. According to the plaintiff, plots A, B, C and D are the properties in their possession. The dispute is with respect to plots B and C, lying almost on the north-eastern portion of the A schedule property. There is a small plot, plot D measuring 7 cents, which is on the north-western part of the plaint A schedule property. There is no dispute with regard to the same. Admittedly, plot E is held by the defendants/appellants. The defendants contend that plots B and C also have been held by them as part of their property. In Ext.C1, the Advocate Commissioner has stated that in plots A, B and C cashew trees, almost of the same age, are seen. If plot B and C are portions of the plaint A
S.A. No: 297/1996
-2-
schedule property, the survey line marked as TU would be the northern boundary of the A schedule property. It is stated by the Commissioner that in continuation of the line TU, which proceeds towards north-west, there was a fence of glyricidia plants. But that fence was seen destroyed, which according to the plaintiff was done by the defendants. It is pointed out that in plot E and in the remaining portion of the property, admittedly held by the defendant, there are pepper vines, areca nut trees etc. Therefore, the nature of the improvements/Kuzhikurs also did indicate that the properties, i.e, plots B and C, are not held by the person holding plot E.
S.A. No: 297/1996
-3-
also the property of Vengayil Leelavathiyamma. It is seen to be correct. Leelavathiyamma's property forms the southern boundary as per the plaint and also as noted by the Commissioner's plan - Ext.C2. In Ext.C2 plan and also in the plaint, the western boundary property is shown to be of one Sankaran Nambiar. Northern boundary properties are shown in the plaint as the property of Valiyaveetil Kunhiraman, property of one Kalarikandi Aymmed and the property of the defendant. This is the property identified by the Commissioner and demarcated in Ext.C2 plan. According to the plaintiff, plots B and C are portions of the plaint A schedule property, boundaries of which have been just mentioned above.
S.A. No: 297/1996
-4-
the boundaries shown in the plaint, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits. It is found that the said property was identified and measured with reference to the boundaries shown in Ext.A3 and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. Though objection was filed by the defendant, it was not seriously pressed into service at the time of trial. The Advocate Commissioner was not examined by the defendants to contend that the identification of the different plots done by the Commissioner is wrong. The names of persons holding the properties on all the boundaries are also noted in Ext.C2 plan. That also would vouch for the correctness of the identification done by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the contention that the property was not properly identified is found to be untenable.
S.A. No: 297/1996
-5-
the undisputed property held by the plaintiff would also fortify the contention regarding the plaintiff's possession of the disputed plots B and C. It is found that the courts below have analysed the pleadings and evidence correctly. It requires no interference at the hands of this Court.
In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
jjj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is interference with findings of courts below on identification and possession of disputed plots.
Alinkeel Damodaran & Others
Edakkeprath Veetil Karthiyayani Amma (Heirs)
N.K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
