Dismissed

K.J. Thomas v. Sree Pulpally Dewaswam

Kerala HC14 Feb 2022FAO/228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed four connected appeals filed against orders dismissing restoration applications in civil suits. The Court found the plaintiffs' identical conduct in prolonging litigation for over a dozen years without prosecuting suits to be a collusive device to defeat devaswom property rights and abuse judicial process, holding that all appeals must be dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

All four first appeals are dismissed with cost throughout.

K.J. Thomas Vs Sree Pulpally Dewaswam — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

FAO NO. 225 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA (RP) NO.23/2018 DATED 22.10.2018 IN AS
44/2008 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶7

K.J.THOMAS
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, ASAMKUTTIYIL HOUSE, SULTAN BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
M.SANTHY
JOHNY THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

SREE PULPALLY DEWASWAM
REP. BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶12

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.3/2019, 228/2018 AND 229/2018, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶14

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶18

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943

¶19

FAO NO. 3 OF 2019

¶20

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A(RP) NO.49/2018 DATED 16.10.2018

¶21

IN AS 22/2010 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY

¶22

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶23

VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI
PULPALLY UNIT,PULPALLY POST,REP.BY ITS VICE
PRESIDENT P.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.RAMAN,KUDILIL HOUSE,
PULPALLY VILLAGE,SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
SMT.M.SANTHY
SRI.JOHNY THOMAS

¶25

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶26

1 SREE PULPALLY DEWASWOM

¶27

REP.BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER,PULPALLY
AMSOM DESOM,S.BATHERY TALUK,WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶28

2 SASIDHARAN AGED 59 YEARS

¶29

S/O MADHAVAN,PUNNAPPURATH,ADIKOLLI,
PULPALLY.P.O. AND VILLAGE,SULTHANBATHERY
TALUK,WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶30

BY ADV T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶31

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.225/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶32

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶33

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶37

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943

¶38

FAO NO. 228 OF 2018

¶39

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.(RP) NO.24/2018 DATED 22.10.2018
IN AS 45/2008 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶40

K.J. THOMAS
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, ASAMKUTTIYIL HOUSE,
SULTAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶41

BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
SMT.M.SANTHY
SRI.JOHNY THOMAS

¶42

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶43

SREE PULPALLY DEWASWAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,
S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶44

BY ADV SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶45

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.225/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶46

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶47

¶48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶49

PRESENT

¶50

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶51

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943

¶52

FAO NO. 229 OF 2018

¶53

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.(RP) NO.48/2018 DATED 16.10.2018
IN AS 21/2010 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶54

VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI
PULPALLY UNIT, PULPALLY POST, REP. BY ITS VICE
PRESIDENT P.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.RAMAN, KUDILIL HOUSE, PULPALLY VILLAGE,
SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶55

BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
SMT.M.SANTHY
SRI.JOHNY THOMAS

¶56

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶57

SREE PULPALLY DEWASWAM
REP. BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,
S.BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 579.

¶58

BY ADV T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶59

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.225/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶60

¶61

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶62

JUDGMENT

¶63

Four suits were instituted by four

¶64

respective plaintiffs for injunction simplicitor
without any substantial prayer in respect of
devaswom property. Thereafter they went away
from the suit without prosecuting the same and
caused to end the same for dismissal for default
(all the four suits). Thereafter, four
restoration applications were filed by the
respective plaintiffs. On dismissal of the
restoration applications, all of them came up in
first appeals, wherein also the very same device
was played by keeping away from the first
appellate court and caused to dismiss the
respective appeals for non-prosecution. Then
again,theypreferredfourrestoration
applications before the first appellate court.
Against the order passed in the respective
applications, these four appeals are preferred

¶65

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶66

¶67

before this court.

¶68

 2. The conduct of all the respective
plaintiffs in four suits are identical and
similar which would show the collusive nature
and the device played effectively by them so as
to drag and defeat the scope of adjudication and
thereby they have dragged the matter for about
fourteen years and twelve years respectively. In
fact, the respective plaintiffs in the four
suits have played fraud on the respective courts
by playing a device and thereby defeated the
adjudication of the alleged dispute which would
prima facie show that they do not have any
probable or debatable case. The very conduct of
all the plaintiffs in four identical suits would
sufficiently show their mischievous intention to
defeat the valuable right of devaswom over the
propertyundertheguiseofpending
suit/proceedings and for that purpose prolonged

¶69

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶70

¶71

and defeated the adjudication of respective
suits for a period of more than twelve years.
In other words, the right of devaswom over the
property was put under the shadow of the suit
filed by these plaintiffs and the appeals
thereof, that too, without any adjudication of
dispute. This would be illustrative of how the
system is working in the hands of unscrupulous
litigants, the plaintiffs herein, by making use
of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure for delaying and defeating justice
without permitting to adjudicate the dispute, if
any available. It is pertaining to a devaswom
property and that would prima facie show what is
behind it especially when it constitutes
delaying and defeating for more than twelve
years. They are actually playing hide and seek
by using the provisions of the Code by filing
restoration applications one after another and
keeping away from the court on all relevant time

¶72

FAO No.225/2018 & Connected Cases

¶73

without prosecuting the suit. Necessarily, all
these appeals should be dismissed with cost
throughout. I do so.

¶74

All the appeals are dismissed with cost
throughout.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

K.J. Thomas v. Sree Pulpally Dewaswam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J. Thomas v. Sree Pulpally Dewaswam

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

Benny Vs Beneesh

Ramakrishnan Vs Khadeeja

Mary Dayil Vs Jayaprakash

Puthanpurayil Abraham Devassia, Vs Shyamala P.C.

K.K.Ashokkumar Vs M.Gopinathan

Rakhi.G.Menon Vs Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.