Dismissed

Prince Mathew v. Thankamma Mathiri

Kerala HC13 Nov 2015RSA/677/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding an injunction suit, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the plaintiff established possession of the properties, and the defendant failed to prove possession of any portion. Possession was treated as a question of fact, precluding interference in a second appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in limine. Impugned decisions upheld, but defendant left free to institute a suit for recovery of possession based on title.

Prince Mathew Vs Thankamma Mathiri — Partition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/22ND KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

RSA.No. 677 of 2015

¶6

AS 88/2014 OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD, DATED 23-01-2015 OS 854/2002 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD DATED 17-11-2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶8

PRINCE V. MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VADAKKAN MATHAPPAN, THEKKEPURAM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

THANKAMMA MATHIRI, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.PULIKKOTTIL VAREED, KULLUMPURATHANGADI, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THE PRESENT ADDRESS IS (THANKAMMA MATHIRI, W/O.PUKKKOTTIL VAREED, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM P.O. -680 503).

¶12

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶15

R.S.A.No.677 of 2015

¶16

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2015

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The defendant in a suit for injunction is the appellant in this second appeal.

¶19

The case of the plaintiff is that she had obtained the plaint schedule properties by virtue of Ext.A3 sale deed and that she is in possession of the same. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule properties and hence the suit. The defendant contended that he is in possession of 70 cents out of the plaint schedule properties and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the suit. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has enclosed

¶20

the the said 70 cents along with her remaining properties after the institution of the suit, by erecting a barbed wire fencing. The trial court found that the plaintiff has established possession over

¶21

R.S.A.No.677 of 2015

¶22

¶23

the suit properties. Consequently, the suit was decreed as prayed for. The defendant had though taken up the matter in appeal, the appellate court, on a re-appraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendant has thus come up in this second appeal challenging the concurrent decisions against him.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶25

As noticed above, the suit is one for injunction

¶26

simplicitor. The only question to be considered by the court in a suit of this nature is as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property . The plaintiff has produced Ext.A3 document to establish her possession over the suit properties. The defendant who claimed that he is in possession of a portion of the suit properties has not adduced any acceptable evidence to substantiate his case, except his assertion that the plaintiff has enclosed with her properties 70 cents of property in his possession after the institution of the suit . The courts below have concurrently found that the defendant could not establish the said case. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the courts below went wrong in holding that the plaintiff is in possession of

¶27

R.S.A.No.677 of 2015

¶28

¶29

the plaint schedule properties. That apart, the question as to possession is a pure question of fact, the decision on which cannot be challenged in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶30

There is, therefore, no merit in the second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that the impugned decisions will not preclude the defendant from instituting a suit for recovery of possession based on title.

¶31

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

smm

Prince Mathew v. Thankamma Mathiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Mathew v. Thankamma Mathiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Jayaprakash Vs Beeny Diaz

Varikkodan Sainaba and Others Vs Kunhami and Others

A.Ramachandran Pillai Vs B.Indira Devi @ Indiramma

Pankaj Builders Vs Thomas Mathew

M.C. Ratnam Vs M.C. Prabhakaran Nair

P.M.Bhargavi Vs Balakrishnan.K.K