Second appeal dismissed. The court declined interference with concurrent findings of fact that no way or path existed through the plaintiff's property, as established by the commissioner and resurvey records.
No 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
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941
RSA.No.781 of 2010
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN AS 78/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, FAST TRACK-II, ALAPPUZHA DATED 30-03-2010
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN OS 781/2005 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,ALAPPUZHA DATED 24-08-2007
APPELLANT/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 SOMANATHAN P., S/O PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT VALANJAVAZHIKKAL,SOUTH ARYAD,MSPO,PATHIRAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA.
3 MOHANAN, S/O.NANDINI, RESIDING AT VALANJAVAZHIKKAL,SOUTH ARYAD,MSPO,PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
SIVAN PILLAI, S/O KRISHNAN KUMAR BHAVAN, THAZHAM MURI,PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA,, FROM THARAYIL HOUSE,SOUTH ARYAD MURI,KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA - 688 008
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A.No.781/2010
2
JUDGMENT
A suit for fixation of boundary of plaint schedule property ended in decree in both the trial court and
the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant came up with this appeal. The defendant's case is that there is a way passing through the eastern extremity of plaintiff's property and the existence of such a way was suppressed by the plaintiff and obtained a decree for fixation of
boundary. The commissioner who prepared Ext.C1 and C1(a) could not see any way in existence as alleged by the defendant through the eastern extremity of property
of plaintiff. Exts.B3 and B4 earlier judgments and
decrees between the defendant and the brother of
plaintiff were brought to the notice of this court to show that there is a way through the eastern extremity
of plaintiff's brother's property. A rough sketch
annexed to Ext.B4 decree would clearly show that there is no such way in existence through the eastern
extremity of property of plaintiff's brother one
R.S.A.No.781/2010 3
Dhanapalan and no such way was included in the rough sketch annexed to Ext.B4. Further at the time of resurvey, it was not noticed by the resurvey authorities and no such way was included or shown in the resurvey plan. The commissioner who visited the property could not see any such way. The concurrent finding rendered by both the courts below thus deserves no interference. The appeal is dismissed as none of questions of law raised at the time of admission would come into play.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower courts found no path in existence and thus no interference shall be made in the facts found by the courts below.
SOMANATHAN P.
NANDINI
MOHANAN
SIVAN PILLAI
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
