Dismissed

Narayani Pillai Gomathi Amma v. Ponnamkulam Devikshetram Trust

Kerala HC13 Mar 2019RSA/1040/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a suit for declaration of title, possession, and setting aside a 'patta', the High Court of Kerala affirmed the lower courts' dismissal. The court held that the survey plan contradicted the gift deed regarding the property extent, finding no substantial question of law and dismissing the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed without costs.

Narayani Pillai Gomathi Amma Vs Ponnamkulam Devikshetram Trust — Partition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 1040 of 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 48/1999 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA DATED 19-10-2004

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 714/1996 of II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,TRIVANDRUM DATED 10-03-1999

¶8

APPELLANTS/(ADDL. APPELLANTS/L.R.S. OF PLAINTIFF):

¶9

1 NARAYANI PILLAI GOMATHI AMMA SIVA VIHAR, PARASUVAIKKAL DESOM, -DO- VILLAGE,, VEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 GOMATHI AMMA LEKHA -DO- -DO-.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶12

RESPONDENT/(RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT):

¶13

PONNAMKULAM DEVIKSHETRAM TRUST REPRESENTED BY RAMAN NAIR, SUMUKAVILASOM BUNGALOW,, PARASUVAIKKAL DESOM, -DO- VILLAGE,, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RSA.No. 1040 of 2005 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

A suit for declaration of title and possession over item No.3 property and for setting aside the 'patta' granted in favour of the defendant over the said property was dismissed by the trial court. In appeal, it was confirmed, against which the plaintiffs came up with this second appeal.

¶19

According to the plaintiff item No.1 having an extent of 6 cents obtained by the plaintiff

¶20

under Ext.A1 document out of which western two

¶21

cents of property sold to a third party. The immediate eastern two cents of property, he had constructed a building. One cent being the eastern

¶22

portion of large extent in the 6 cents gifted to

¶23

the defendant along with the 'Kallambalam' (waiting

¶24

place) to the defendant under Ext.A2 gift deed

¶25

dated 19.4.1989. Item No.3, according to the

¶26

plaintiff is the balance extent available, over

¶27

RSA.No. 1040 of 2005 3

¶28

which the defendant has unauthorisedly obtained 'patta' and hence, the suit for declaration of title and possession of item No.3 and for setting aside the 'patta'.

¶29

Ext.A2 is the gift deed pertaining to one

¶30

cent of property gifted to the defendant along with the 'Kallambalam' therein, a granite structure intended to be used as a rest place by travellers.

¶31

Going by the description given in Ext.A2, the property given under that document forms part of large extent of 6 cents, that is the extreme eastern portion of 6 cents of property. The 'elukas' (boundaries) would show that the said

¶32

property would stretch up to southern boundary line till the northern boundary line of large extent of 6 cents of property. The southern and northern boundary of large extent of 6 cents of property stated as shop room of Murugan, a third person and a road. Going by Ext.A2 description, the property

¶33

RSA.No. 1040 of 2005 4

¶34

given under the gift would extent till the northern

¶35

and southern boundary of the property and it would be the eastern part of the large extent of 6 cents. Now the claim is that the plaintiff has got some portion of property as balance extent which is lying on north to the property given under Ext.A2. Going by the description given in Ext.A2 document, there cannot be any such property on the north of one cent of property given under Ext.A2. It seemed to be so strange that the commissioner who prepared Ext.C1(b) plan with the assistance of a surveyor had located some extent of property as that of plaintiff on the north of property given to the defendant under Ext.A2. The mischievous intention in preparing the said plan is well evident, overlooking the description given under Ext.A2. As per the description given in Ext.A2, the property given to the defendant would extent up to northern boundary and southern boundary of large extent of 6

¶36

RSA.No. 1040 of 2005 5

¶37

cents. It has been overlooked or rather ignored by

¶38

the surveyor, who prepared Ext.C1(b) plan. It is

¶39

so unfortunate to see that the surveyor or the commissioner has not taken into consideration the description given in Ext.A2 document and the fact

¶40

that the defendant had obtained 'patta' over the property. Hence, the concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court and the first appellate court,

¶41

deserves no interference by this court. No

¶42

substantial question of law much less any question of law brought to the notice of this court. Appeal fails, deserves only dismissal. But without costs. Appeal is dismissed, without costs.

¶43

Sd/P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶44

¶45

// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE

Narayani Pillai Gomathi Amma v. Ponnamkulam Devikshetram Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayani Pillai Gomathi Amma v. Ponnamkulam Devikshetram Trust

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

Sabeena Vs K.N.Rajagopal

Velayudhan Nair Vs Parvathy @ Thankamma

Madhavi Vs Raghavan Pillai (Deleted)

Krishnan and Another Vs Janaki and Others

Josephine Manuel Vs Chinnamma

T.C.Jayanandan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board