Dismissed

K.Swarnalatha v. Vincent David Kodayath

Kerala HC5 Jan 2016RSA/1113/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for damages for removal of coconut trees, the High Court upheld the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The court held that under existing law, the defendant's purchased title is presumed valid despite a pending challenge, as the operation of the certificate was not stayed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed as it was devoid of merits; all interlocutory applications were closed.

K.Swarnalatha Vs Vincent David Kodayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

RSA.No. 1113 of 2015 (G)

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS. NO.32/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 30-01-2015. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS. NO.410/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE DATED 16-01-2013.

¶7

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

1. K. SWARNALATHA, AGED 67 YEARS,

¶9

W/O. PATHMANABHAN, CHIRANJEEVE, PUDUSSERI PARAMBA, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM,

¶10

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶11

2. K. SUNITHA, AGED 43 YEARS,

¶12

D/O. PATHMANABHAN, CHIRANJEEVE,

¶13

PUDUSSERI PARAMBA, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM,

¶14

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶15

3. K. SUJA, AGED 41 YEARS,

¶16

D/O. PATHMANABHAN, CHIRANJEEVE,

¶17

PUDUSSERI PARAMBA, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM,

¶18

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶19

4. K. SUDHA, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶20

D/O. PATHMANABHAN, CHIRANJEEVE, PUDUSSERI PARAMBA, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM,

¶21

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶22

5. K. SUDEEPKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,

¶23

S/O. PATHMANABHAN, CHIRANJEEVE,

¶24

PUDUSSERI PARAMBA, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM,

¶25

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S.

¶27

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶28

VINCENT DEVID KODAYATH, AGE NOT KNOWN S/O DEVID JOHN, PALATTUTHAZAM PARAMBA, NERA MALAYALA MANORAMA PRESS, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-673 001.

¶29

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

rs.

¶31

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶32

R.S.A. No.1113 of 2015

¶33

Dated 5^th January, 2016.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The plaintiffs in a suit for damages are the appellants in this second appeal.

¶36

The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property belongs to them and that the defendant has cut and removed two coconut trees stood therein. According to the plaintiffs, on account of the said conduct of the defendant, they have sustained a loss of Rs.15,000/-. It is stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint that the brother of the defendant is the lessee of the building in the suit property and that the defendant has nothing to do with the suit property. The defendant resisted the suit contending, among others, that he and his brother John David are kudikidappukars in respect of the suit property and that they have obtained Ext.B1 purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal concerned in respect of the suit property. In other

¶37

RSA No.1113 of 2015

¶38

¶39

words, according to the defendant, he along with his brother holds title to the suit property. The fact that two coconut trees stood in the suit property were cut and removed by the defendant is in fact not disputed by the defendant. The trial court found that the defendant has obtained title to the suit property and consequently, dismissed the suit. Though the matter was taken up in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiffs.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶41

As noted above, the case of the plaintiffs is that

¶42

the defendant has no right whatsoever over the suit property. On the other hand, the case set up by the defendant is that he along with his brother John David have obtained title to the suit property. Ext.B1 is the purchase certificate obtained by the defendant and his brother in respect of the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ext.B1 purchase certificate has not become final. According to him, though the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs challenging Ext.B1

¶43

RSA No.1113 of 2015

¶44

¶45

purchase certificate has been dismissed by the appellate authority concerned, the decision therein is challenged by them in C.R.P.(LR) No.225 of 2014 and the same is pending. The fact that the coconut trees stood in the property were cut and removed by the defendant after Ext.B1 purchase certificate is not in dispute. The plaintiffs have no case that the operation of Ext.B1 purchase certificate has been stayed by this Court in the said Civil Revision Petition. In other words, at the time when the trees were cut and removed, the defendant and his brother were the owners of the property. Merely for the reason that the plaintiffs have challenged Ext.B1 purchase certificate, it cannot be said that the defendant has not acquired title to the suit property as per Ext.B1 purchase certificate. Of course, the title of the defendant and his brother John David is subject to the final outcome of C.R.P.(LR) No.225 of 2014. Until Ext.B1 purchase certificate is interfered with by this Court, it will have to be presumed that the defendant has acquired title to the property. In the said view of the matter, it cannot be said that the decisions of the courts below are illegal or incorrect in any

¶46

RSA No.1113 of 2015

¶47

¶48

manner. 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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶51

tgs

¶52

(true copy)

K.Swarnalatha v. Vincent David Kodayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Swarnalatha v. Vincent David Kodayath

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

Janaki Amma Vs Sarala Devi

Tharayil Balan Vs Tharayil Anil Kumar

Prabhakaran Vs Ayyappan

Maniedathyamuna @ Yamuna Bai Vs K.Velayudhan

Prasad Vs Remani

K.S. Rajesh Vs P.P. George