Dismissed
V.Velayudhan v. K.S.H.B.
Kerala HCRSA/389/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938
RSA.No. 389 of 2008 (D)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN AS 187/2001 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 09-10-2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 1137/1994 of II ADDL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28-11-2000
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1. V.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.V.PANDIT, PANDIT'S BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. V.S.SIVAMOHAN, INGLUME, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. S.DINESH SIVANANDAN, INGLUME, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SMT.M.HEMALATHA SMT.N.K.MAYA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
NO REPRESENTATION FOR BOTH PARTIES. APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION.
SD/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE
6.10.2016
OKB
//True copy // P.A. to Judge
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
R. S. A. No.389 of 2008
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008
ORDER
The plaintiffs are the appellants.
Plaintiffs have sought for declaration of title over scheduled property comprised in Sy. No.3620/2 of Madathuvilakom village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk which lies adjacent to the property acquired by the Housing Board for formation of a housing colony by name Pandit's Colony. It appears that they were under the impression that portions of Sy. No.3620/2 also is acquired by the Housing Board.
Housing Board they have taken the stand that they have not acquired any portion of land in Sy. No.3620/2 which lies adjacent to property in Sy. No.3620/1 which is acquired by them and which is earmarked by them as a playground.
-2-
R. S. A. No.389 of 2008
Advancing need for putting up of boundary separating their playground comprised in Sy. No.3620/1 which is scheduled to the written statement as 'B' schedule and describing property in Sy. No.3620/2 as 'A' schedule and admitting that it belongs to plaintiffs, the respondent/defendant prayed for a decree for putting up of boundary between 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties by way of counter claim.
was dismissed by the trial court. As against that part of the decree by which the counter claim was disallowed, there is no appeal and that has become final as against the respondent/Housing Board. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal as A.S.187/01 and that was dismissed. At the same time, the fact remains that even as admitted by the Housing Board plaintiffs have got property adjacent to the property acquired by the Housing Board and
-3-
R. S. A. No.389 of 2008
comprised in Sy. No.3620/2 as claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs. The dismissal of the suit and appeal cannot however, be found fault with as no title document was produced by the appellants/plaintiffs. Counsel for the
appellants prays for a remand of a case back to the trial court enabling the appellants to adduce evidence to substantiate their claim. In a case wherein admittedly the plaintiff is having property the court is rendered unable
to give a decree for reason of the inefficiency with which a counsel has conducted the case in the court below. In the circumstances, I am of the view that a remand
may have to be ordered to do justice to the parties as otherwise, there is likelihood of plaintiff being deprived of the property which they claim and which the respondent admits that the appellants/plaintiffs is having. In the circumstances, I admit this R.S.A on the
-4-
R. S. A. No.389 of 2008
following substantial question of law:-
possession of the plaintiffs/appellants is admitted by the respondent/defendant the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit and
the appellate court was justified in at least not ordering a remand finding that the case of the plaintiff regarding her title stands admitted also by the respondent/defendant.”
post with acknowledgment due to the respondent and shall simultaneously serve copy of the appeal memorandum to the Standing Counsel of the Housing Board. Post on 28/07/08.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
kns/-
V. VELAYUDHAN
V.S. SIVAMOHAN
S. DINESH SIVANANDAN
KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
K. HARILAL
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court