Allowed

Sujatha v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC20 Aug 2019RSA/787/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal against the dismissal of a suit for injunction, the High Court held that the suit could not be decided without adjudicating the title. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was remanded to the trial court to frame an issue on title and determine the cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the lower decrees set aside, and the suit remanded to the trial court to frame an issue on title.

Sujatha Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

RSA.No.787 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 35/2017 DATED 29-03-2019 OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 18/2013 DATED 29-02-2016 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANT/S:

¶9

SUJATHA

¶10

D/O. M.K. PARAMESWARA MENON, MEZHUVELIL HOUSE, EAST KALOOR KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685 584

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 603

¶15

SRI.P.M.SATHEESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RSA.No.787 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The suit was for injunction. The trial court decreed the suit. In appeal, the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Hence the second appeal is filed. It was admitted today.

¶21

As is agreed by both sides, the appeal itself is heard and disposed of today.

¶22

The following substantial question of law has been formulated:

¶23

Was it proper on the part of the lower appellate court to nonsuit the plaintiff on the ground that the question of title was also involved in the suit and therefore a simple suit for injunction was not maintainable?

¶24

Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant

¶25

and Sri.P.M.Satheesh, the learned government pleader.

¶26

The suit was one for injunction. The trial court did not go into the question of title. It granted a decree of injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the plaint schedule property or illegally or forcefully removing the improvements in the property without due process of law. The appellate court was of the view that a simple suit for injunction was not maintainable and that the plaintiff should have sued on title. After reading the pleadings of the parties and the judgments of the courts below, I am of the considered opinion

¶27

¶28

RSA.No.787 OF 2019

¶29

that the suit cannot be decided without going into the question of title. Therefore an opportunity should be granted to the plaintiff to get an adjudication on the question of title. In this view of the matter, the only option is to remand the suit back to the trial court. The trial court will frame an issue on title. On framing of such an issue, the plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to pay court-fees under Sec.27(a) of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

¶30

The appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are set aside. The suit stands remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall dispose of the suit anew in accordance with law and after giving the opportunity referred to earlier. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. They shall appear before the trial court on 19.9.2019. The trial court shall dispose of the suit within three months from 19.9.2019.

¶31

Sd/A.M.Babu Judge

¶32

sks/20.8.2019

Sujatha v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha v. the Tahsildar

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

Laila Vs Sirajudeen

Joseph Vs Sasi

M.v.Selvaraj Vs N.a.Vijayan Achari

Abdurahiman Vs K.Muhammed Abdurahiman

P.Ratnavally Vs Bhanumathy

Sandeep Vs Suresh