Partly allowed

Panniyankara Sree Durga Bhagavathi Kshet v. Secretary,Corporation of Calicut

Kerala HC15 Oct 2014RSA/286/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning temple property rights and a road dispute, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the lower appellate court. The High Court ordered a fresh reconsideration of evidence upon admitting additional revenue register documents submitted by the appellants to prove title.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside; the matter was remitted to the lower appellate court for reconsideration of the entire matter after admitting additional documents produced

Panniyankara Sree Durga Bhagavathi Kshet Vs… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/23RD ASWINA, 1936

¶5

RSA.No. 286 of 2006 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO.371/2004 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 06-10-2005

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.634/2001 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOZHIKODE-II DATED 06-08-2004

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶9

1. PANNIYANKARA SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRAM TRUSTEE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN A.VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, 'KRISHNA NIVAS'

¶10

PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2. K.V.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O P.BALAKRISHNAN MENON, 'DEEPAK', PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶14

SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF CALICUT CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

BY SRI.K.D.BABU, SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

bka/-

¶18

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶19

R.S.A. No. 286 of 2006

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2014

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The appellants are the plaintiffs in OS No.634/2001 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. The suit was one for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and the appellant took the matter in appeal before the appellate court, which confirmed the decree of dismissal.

¶23

The dispute between the parties is with respect to the way leading to the temple from a public road and a tank. The plaint consists of two items of property. Plaint A schedule is the temple compound and the way leading to the temple, which is comprised in Re.Sy.No.120 and

¶24

Re.Sy.No.119 of Panniyankara Amsom. The appellants/plaintiffs allege that the property in Re.Sy.No.120 is a temple and its compound and the property in Re.Sy.No.119 is the way leading to the

¶25

..2..

¶26

R.S.A. No. 286 of 2006

¶27

temple. Plaint B schedule is the portion of the way connecting the public road and the way to the temple having a width of 15 feet and length of 300 feet. Plaint C schedule is a temple tank. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the plaint B schedule way and C schedule tank belong exclusively to the temple and the same have not been vested with the respondent corporation. The grievance of the appellants/plaintiffs is that some people residing near the temple attempted to take heavy vehicles through B schedule way and the temple authorities objected to the same. The appellants/plaintiffs would further contend that yielding to the influence of the local people, the respondent corporation issued notice to the temple authorities to remove the sign board placed at the starting point of the road. It is pointed out that the corporation has taken a stand that the disputed road and the tank are statutorily vested with the corporation. It is with this background, the appellants/plaintiffs approached the trial court.

¶28

R.S.A. No. 286 of 2006

¶29

..3..

¶30

The respondent corporation, who contested the suit, contended that B schedule way and C schedule tank are public way and public tank and they are statutorily vested with the corporation. According to them, the temple authorities have no right to obstruct the corporation from exercising their rights over the disputed way and the tank.

¶31

The trial court, after raising proper issues for trial, permitted the parties to go for evidence. After trial, PW1 & DW1 were examined and Exts.A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A5(a), A6, B1, B2 & B3 were marked. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the appellants/plaintiffs have not produced sufficient documents to prove their title to the disputed way and tank. As already pointed out, the appellants/plaintiffs took the matter in appeal, but, without success. It is with this background, the appellants/plaintiffs have come up before this Court with this regular second appeal.

¶32

The appellant has filed IA No.786/2006 along

¶33

R.S.A. No. 286 of 2006

¶34

..4..

¶35

with two documents, viz., extract from the Revenue Register with respect to plaint B schedule way and extract from the Revenue Register with respect to plaint C schedule tank. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that those documents would prove the case of the appellants.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, per contra, would submit that Ext.B2 settlement Adangal Register and Ext.B3 Road Register produced by them before the lower court would substantiate the case of the corporation that B schedule way and C schedule tank are statutorily vested with the corporation.

¶37

It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that though Exts.B2 and B3 are relied upon by the trial court, for proper appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to have a perusal of the two documents now produced by the appellants before this Court. For that, it is only just and proper to remit the

¶38

R.S.A. No. 286 of 2006

¶39

..5..

¶40

matter back to the lower appellate court so that the evidence can be re-appreciated admitting the additional documents on record by the lower appellate court.

¶41

Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

¶42

The impugned judgment is set aside.

¶43

The matter is remitted back to the lower appellate court for reconsideration of the entire matter in the light of the additional documents produced along with IA No.786/2006 by the appellants. The appellants are permitted to take back the documents produced along with the IA and to produce the same before the lower appellate court. The parties shall mark appearance before the lower appellate court on 07.11.2014. The lower appellate court shall admit the documents, if any, produced by both sides. The entire evidence shall be reconsidered thereafter and a final verdict shall be given within a period of three months.

¶44

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶45

bka/-

Panniyankara Sree Durga Bhagavathi Kshet v. Secretary,Corporation of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panniyankara Sree Durga Bhagavathi Kshet v. Secretary,Corporation of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.E.Sarada Vs K.v.Govindan Nair

Sulochana Vs Rugmini

The Managing Director Vs J. Alexander

Kollarath Gopalan Vs Edathikandi Mariyam Umma

Damodaran Achari Vs Ponnamma

Udayakumar P.K. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board