This regular second appeal was dismissed as the appellant (third defendant) had no property adjoining the suit premises and thus could not be considered a person aggrieved entitled to appeal under Section 100 CPC.
The third appeal is dismissed as the appellant is not an aggrieved person under Section 100 CPC.
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 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/24TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RSA.No. 204 of 2016 (G)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS. NO.70/2014 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR DATED 22-09-2015. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS. NO.65/2013 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI DATED 30-07-2014.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/3RD DEFENDANT:
ADICHUKULANGARA FAISAL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MOIDUNNI, NANNAMMUKU AMSOM, KALLORMA DESOM, NANNAMMUKKU P.O, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS:
1. KARUVAN PARAMESWARAN, 53 YEARS, S/O.ILLAPPARAMBIL CHATHAR, NANNAMMUKKU AMSOM, KALLORMA DESOM, NANNAMMUKKU P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.
2. ADICHUKULANGAERA HUSSAIN, 45 YEARS, S/O.MOIDUNNI, NANNAMMUKKU AMSOM, KALLORMA DESOM, NANNAMMUKKU P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.
3. ADICHIKULANGARA SAKEER, 36 YEARS, S/O.MOIDUNNI, NANNAMMUKKU AMSOM, KALLORMA DESOM, NANNAMMUKKU P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.No.204 of 2016
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The third defendant in a suit for injunction is the
appellant.
of the decree in O.S.No.154 of 2008 and that he is in possession of the same. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule properties. The first defendant in the suit is the second defendant in O.S.No.154 of 2008. The second defendant is the the brother of the first defendant. The third defendant is another brother of the first defendant. The third defendant has no property adjoining the plaint schedule properties. Nevertheless he contested the suit,
R.S.A.No.204 of 2016 2
contending that the plaintiff is attempting to grab the property of the first defendant in the guise of the decree obtained by him in O.S.No.154 of 2008. The trial court rejected the contentions of the third defendant and decreed the suit. Though the third defendant preferred an appeal challenging the decision of the appellate court, on an appraisal of the evidence on record, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal by the third defendant.
property adjoining the plaint schedule properties. The first defendant who claims to have properties adjoining the plaint schedule properties has not preferred any appeal challenging the decision of the trial court. The third respondent who has preferred the appeal does not assert any right over the plaint schedule properties. It is settled that only a person who is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court can prefer an appeal challenging the decision
R.S.A.No.204 of 2016 3
of the appellate court invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In so far as the third defendant has no property adjoining the plaint schedule properties, he cannot be regarded as a person aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court. In the said view of the matter, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the third defendant, who has no adjoining property to the suit premises, is a person aggrieved entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the second appeal filed by the third defendant should be allowed to challenge the confirmation of the trial decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Adichukulangara Faisal
Karuvan Parameswaran
Adichulanganera Hussain
Adichikulangara Sakeer
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
