This regular second appeal challenged concurrent findings in a suit for mandatory injunction regarding encroachment. The High Court dismissed the appeal noting no substantial question of law and no evidence challenge, suggesting mediation due to repeated litigation. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Appeal dismissed without costs.
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.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1941
RSA.No.1455 of 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27-06-2011 IN AS 25/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOCHI
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24-10-2008 IN OS 65/2007 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
DEVASSY,
S/O PAPPACHAN, AGED 63 YEARS,
THERUVIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, PUTHUVYPU P.O, KOCHI TALUK, PIN- 682 508.
BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 LEELA, W/O SHAJI, KARIATHARA HOUSE, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, PUTHUVYPU P.O, KOCHI TLAUK, PIN- 682 508.
2 SHAJI
BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No.1455 of 2011
2
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff came up with this appeal against
the concurrent finding by both the Trial Court (Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi) in O.S.NO.65/2007 and the First Appellate Court (Sub Court, Kochi) in A.S.No.25/2009 in a suit for
mandatory injunction claiming that some portion of the way in existence was encroached upon by the defendants. This suit is the 3rd attempt made by the plaintiff based on the same subject matter. Earlier a suit for injunction was filed claiming a way through the property of the defendants. Subsequently, that suit was withdrawn without prejudice the right of filing a fresh suit. Then again another injunction suit was filed which was also withdrawn without obtaining leave to institute
a fresh suit. The 3rd injunction suit was filed subsequently for the very same relief. It was dismissed by both the Trial Court and the First
RSA.No.1455 of 2011
3
Appellate Court. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court inorder to have an interference with the appreciation of evidence on factual issues. No substantial question of law also brought to the notice of this Court inorder to have interference
with the concurrent finding rendered by both the court below. Instead of, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that it is fit and proper to mediate the matter by summoning the parties. This appeal is of the year 2011. The 3rd round litigation started in the year 2007. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court to show existence of any substantial question of law much less any question of law. Hence, appeal deserves only dismissal, but without costs.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for mandatory injunction regarding encroachment deserves interference absent a substantial question of law.
Whether the matter requires mediation due to multiple prior litigations on the same subject matter.
DEVASSY
LEELA
SHAJI
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
