Dismissed

P.K.Chandran @ P.K.Surendran v. Kalliyani

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018RSA/500/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged decrees granting injunctions against the appellant-son for obstructing the plaintiff-mother's possession. The court affirmed earlier findings that property belonged to the mother and the son's residence was permissive, barred by res judicata, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed without costs. The earlier judgments and decrees prohibiting obstruction to the plaintiff's peaceful possession stand confirmed.

P.K.Chandran @ P.K.Surendran Vs Kalliyani — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 500 of 2004 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-11-2003 IN AS 98/2003 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR,

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.09.2002 IN OS 1407/2001 of III ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS IN LOWER APPELLATE COURT/DEFENDANTS : -

¶9

1 P.K.CHANDRAN @ P.K.SURENDRAN, S/O. PALLIPURAM KUTTAPPAN, NELLIKUNNUKARA DESOM,

¶10

OLLOORKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶11

2 SUSHEELA, W/O. P.K.SURENDRAN, NELLIKUNNUKARA DESOM, OLLOORKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN

¶13

SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN

¶14

RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT IN LOWER APPELLATE COURT/PLAINTIFF : -

¶15

KALLIYANI, W/O. PALLIPURAM KUTTAPPAN,

¶16

NELLIKUNNUKARA DESOM, OLLURKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.PEARLY JOSE SRI.U.RAVISANKAR

¶18

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

DMR/-

¶20

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

¶21

R.S.A. No. 500 of 2004

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in A.S.No.98/2003 of the District Court, Thrissur, dated 21.11.2003, and in O.S.No.1407/2001 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, the defendants came up with this appeal. It is a case wherein the mother had instituted a suit against her only son for a permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property scheduled in the plaint. The Trial Court decreed the suit against which an appeal was preferred wherein the decree granted by the Lower Court was confirmed, against which this second appeal is preferred.

¶25

There was an earlier suit in O.S.No.511/95 before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, instituted by the very same plaintiff against the very same defendants for a permanent prohibitory injunction, but on a different cause of action. That suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, which was taken up in appeal in A.S.No.164/96 wherein the decree of the Trial Court was

¶26

reversed and granted a permanent prohibitory injunction after

¶27

R.S.A. No. 500 of 2004

¶28

¶29

entering into a finding that the plaintiff is having valid title over the property and that her son, though residing in the property, is having only a permissive occupation over the property which can be terminated at any time by the owner. It was taken up before this Court in a Second Appeal wherein there was a submission by the plaintiff to the effect that she is not intending to alienate or encumber or mortgage the property in question. So, the Second Appeal was closed without altering the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. It is thereafter the second suit was filed entirely on a different cause of action based on an attempt from the part of her son to obstruct her peaceful possession. The Lower Court decreed the suit once again based on the finding rendered by the First Appellate Court in the earlier proceedings, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. As discussed earlier, there is a finding that the plaintiff is the real owner of the property and she is the mother of the defendant who is the one and only son. If any permission was granted to reside in the said house, it can only be a

¶30

R.S.A. No. 500 of 2004

¶31

¶32

permissive possession and the permission/licence granted can be terminated at any time. The claim of the son that he had constructed the building utilizing his own funds, which comes to Rs.70,000/-, was also negatived in the earlier proceedings. So, the same cannot be reopened in a second stage, as the same is stood as barred by the principle of res judicata as embodied under Section 11 CPC. No other ground is brought to the notice of this Court so as to have an interference by way of a second appeal. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the mother was aged 66 years at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2003 and she might be at the age of 81 years as on today. It is also submitted that she is not aware of the fact whether she is residing along with her son or living separately. She pleaded ignorance even whether she is alive as on today. In any view of the matter, as discussed earlier, the second appeal will not stand and hence dismissed. No costs.

¶33

Sd/- P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶34

DMR/-

P.K.Chandran @ P.K.Surendran v. Kalliyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Chandran @ P.K.Surendran v. Kalliyani

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

Gladis James @ Doly Martin Dale Vs Geoffrey Martin

Kunju Vs John

Puranderan Vs Chitrangadan

Jose Paul Vs Paul

P.Dinesh Vs Komalam Mannadiyar

Thomas @ Thankachan Vs Paulose