In a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction over reserve forest land, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appellate court's factual finding that plaintiffs failed to establish possession could not be interfered with under CPC Section 100.
Second appeal dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.
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.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937
RSA.No. 1095 of 2015
AS 135/2007 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA, DATED 01-06-2015 OS 263/2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR, DATED 22-02-2007
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
1. LEELAMMA, W/O JOSE, KUDIL PURAUIDOM VEEDU, EDAPALAYAM, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
2. ABRAHAM @ JOSE, KUDIL PURAUIDOM VEEDU, EDAPALAYAM, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.SUNANDA SUKUMARAN SMT.K.R.MONISHA SMT.CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.SYAMA SIDHARTHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFCER. THENMALA, KOLLAM 691 308.
3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER. ARYANKAVU, KOLLAM 691 316.
BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
R.S.A.No.1095 of 2015.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015.
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs in a suit for injunction are the appellants in this second appeal.
2
RSA.No.1095/2015.
plaintiffs cannot claim possession over the same. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court have thus come up in this second appeal.
RSA.No.1095/2015.
3
Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the suit property is part of the reserve forest of the State. The second appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //
PA TO JUDGE.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the appellate court's factual finding regarding the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property.
Whether the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC has merits given the nature of the suit property and the established fact.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LEELAMMA
ABRAHAM
STATE OF KERALA
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFCER
FOREST RANGE OFFICER
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
