This second appeal challenged a decree dismissing a suit for mandatory injunction. The appellant alleged a pipeline was drawn through his courtyard, but the court held that evidence showed it was drawn through the fourth respondent's property, and unrelated title disputes were not considered.
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
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937
RSA.No. 663 of 2014
JUDGMENT DATED 20-02-2014 IN AS 235/2010 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD JUDGMENT DATED 30-06-2010 IN OS 26/2007 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
K.A.BALABHADRAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, KUNNUKAD HOUSE, THENKURUSSI AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. K.LAKSHMIDEVI, AGED 68 YEARS,
2. AJIDAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, HOUSE NO 16/602, VALIYA VEEDU,
3. ANIDAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, HOUSE NO 16/602, VALIYA VEEDU, KUNNANUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD-678 702.
4. C.C. THARUKUTTY, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.CHERU, CHERUVATHUR, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 555.
5. THE SECRETARY, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY AT DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KALMANDAPAM, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD-678 001.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.No.663 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction is the appellant in this second appeal.
R.S.A.No.663 of 2014
2
through the property covered by Ext.B1 sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant. The Advocate commissioner deputed in the suit located and identified the suit properties. Ext.C3 is the report and C3(a) is the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. In Ext.C3 report, the Advocate Commissioner has stated that the pipe line to the residential building of the defendants 1 to 4 is drawn through the property covered by Ext.B1 sale deed. The trial court found that the plaintiff could not establish that the pipe line has been drawn by the defendants 1 to 4 through the courtyard of the residential building of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and consequently, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff took up the matter 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 plaintiff.
that the Advocate Commissioner has not correctly identified the
R.S.A.No.663 of 2014
3
suit properties and that therefore the conclusion arrived at by him that the pipeline is drawn through the property covered by Ext.B1 sale deed is incorrect. The learned counsel also contended that Ext.B1 sale deed is a document executed on the strength of a will which was held to be invalid in a proceedings by this Court.
R.S.A.No.663 of 2014
4
claims a right of user. The right, title and interest of the defendants 1 to 4 over the property covered by Ext.B1 sale deed is not the subject matter of the suit. As such, the contention that the defendants have no right over the property covered by Ext.B1 sale deed does not merit consideration.
In the said view of the matter, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can establish that the pipeline was drawn through his courtyard and not the defendants' property as alleged.
Whether the Advocate Commissioner's identification of the property is correct based on the existing evidence.
K.A. Balabhran
K. Lakshmidevi
Ajidas
Anidas
C.C. Tharukutty
The Secretary, Kerala Water Authority
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
