This appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding an electric line and pipeline was dismissed. The court found no evidence of title or right over the property and noted that drawing lines through a public way cannot be obstructed.
The appeal is dismissed but 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
WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940
SA.No. 356 of 2002
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN AS 22/1995 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY DATED 04-10-2001
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS 572/1992 of MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR DATED 28-10-1994
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:
1 T.C.JAYANANDAN, S/O JANAKI, AGED 54 YEARS, EX-SERVICEMAN, R/O. ANANDA SADANAM, H.NO. K.A.209, THANA, KANNUR.
2 T.V. JAYASREE, D/O. JANAKI AGED 42 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION R/O., ANANDASADANAM HOUSE NO.K.A.209, THANA, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, KWA SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S.A.No.356/2002
2
JUDGMENT
A suit for injunction resulted in dismissal both in the trial court and the First Appellate Court. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction against drawing electric line and pipeline through a portion of the plaint schedule property. The Commissioner who visited the property found the existence of a way. The plaintiffs though filed a suit for injunction simplicitor, no document produced to show the acquisition of right over the property. Though the plaintiffs claim is that they have obtained pattayam over the property, the pattayam was not produced. No satisfactory evidence was adduced to show the right, title and interest over the property. The admission made by the defendant, if any will not confer title to the plaintiff. The non-production of Pattayam is so crucial and fatal to the case advanced by the plaintiffs. Further drawing of pipeline and electric line through a public way cannot be obstructed. No substantial prayer was also incorporated in the suit. The concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court and the First Appellate Court thus deserves no interference.
The appeal is dismissed, but without costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
sv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the drawing of electric line and pipeline can be allowed without proof of title or acquisition of right over the property.
Whether the dismissal of the suit for lack of evidence of title deserves interference by the appellate court.
T.C.JAYANANDAN
T.V. JAYASREE
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
