The Kerala High Court dismissed a second appeal in a suit for injunction. The court held that since defendants disputed the identity of the suite property and the plaintiff failed to commission an identification survey, the lower courts were not at fault for non-suitting the plaintiff.
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
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/18TH KARTHIKA, 1937
RSA.No. 654 of 2006 ( )
-----------------------AS 128/2002 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 27-02-2006 OS 217/2001 of PRL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF::
----------------------------------------------------
THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS::
1. N.A. MOIDU, S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN, RESIDING AT POVVAL, P.O. MULIYAR, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. SUHARA, W/O. N.A. MOIDU, RESIDING AT POVVAL, P.O. MULIYAR, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.No.654 of 2006
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for injunction is the
appellant.
Government of Kerala. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is part of the Government land transferred to them by the Agricultural Department of the State for their activities. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. In the written statement filed by them, they disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property. They also contended that the plaint schedule property is the property obtained by them as per Ext.B1 patta. Though the identity of the suit property was
R.S.A.No.654 of 2006
2
disputed by the defendants, the plaintiff has not taken out a commission to identify and locate the suit property. The trial court, in the circumstances, dismissed the suit and the decision of the trial court has been confirmed in appeal. The plaintiff has thus come up in the second appeal challenging the concurrent decisions against them.
the written statement disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property. According to them, plaint schedule property is the property obtained by them as per Ext.B1 patta. In so far as the plaintiff has not taken any steps to identify the suit property when the identity of the same was disputed by the defendants, the courts below cannot be faulted for having non-suited the plaintiff.
There is no substantial question of law, much less
R.S.A.No.654 of 2006
3
any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. The second appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in non-suiting the plaintiff for failing to identify the disputed property after the defendants contested its identity.
The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited
N.A. Moidu
Suhara
P.B.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
