Dismissed

Jayakumar @ Nettirachira Jayan v. Ajith Kumar

Kerala HC7 Jun 2023RSA/980/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regulation Second Appeal challenging a decree for recovery of possession. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting a total absence of material to prove the alleged dedication of the property or the interest of the non-impleaded political party, and found the plea of adverse possession unsupported.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.

Jayakumar @ Nettirachira Jayan Vs Ajith Kumar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

RSA NO. 980 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 454/2010 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶7

AS 46/2014 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 AND 6:

¶9

1 JAYAKUMAR @ NETTIRACHIRA JAYAN, AGED 54, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, VAZHALI VEEDU, NETTIRACHIRA, KARIPPOORU VILLAGE

¶10

2 JAYAKUMAR @ ANAD JAYAN, BHASKARA VILASOM,AGED 59,VAZHOTTUKONAM, ANAD.

¶11

3 SUKUMARAN @ KALLAYAM SUKU, AGED 57,KALLAYAM, MUKKOLA, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE.

¶12

4 CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR @ VATTAPPARA CHANDRAN, ANIL HOUSE, NEAR PMS DENTAL COLLEGE.

¶13

5 SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.MANIKANTAN NAIR, AGED 49,RETHINA VILLAGE, VANDA, KARIPPOORU VILLAGE.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) NISHA GEORGE J.VISHNU

¶16

RSA NO.980/2019 -2-

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT NO.5:

¶18

1 AJITH KUMAR S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 51, KOTTIAYATHARA VEEDU, VITHURA, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, THOLICODE VILLAGE 2 SURESH KUMAR @ KARIPPOORU SURESH, S/O. APPUKUTTAN,AGED 49,KARAMTHALA, KARIPPORU FOR R1 BY ADVS. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR HELEN P.A. C.R.SYAMKUMAR ARUN ROY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = RSA No.980 of 2019

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2023

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The concurrent decree in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title is under challenge by the defendant.

¶24

Ext.A1 is the Settlement Deed No.1568/2000 under

¶25

which the plaintiff claims title over the plaint schedule property. Ext.A3 series is the property tax receipts and Ext.A8 series is the building tax receipts with respect to the property and the building situated thereon. The plaintiff alleges that, the defendants who are the local leaders of the political party-Indian National Congress, trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 25.10.2010. It is accordingly that the suit was filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title.

¶26

The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff. They contended that the predecessor of the

¶27

RSA No.980 of 2019

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

plaintiff had dedicated the property to the political party in the year 1950 and that ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was contended that, since the Indian National Congress is not impleaded in the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. A further plea was urged that the title of the plaintiff was lost by adverse possession and limitation.

¶30

On the side of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were

¶31

examined and Exts.A1 to A30 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. No

¶32

documentary evidence was produced by them. The Commissioner's Report and Plan were marked as Exts.C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a).

¶33

The trial court found that the plaintiff has proved his title over the property. The plea of dedication was found unsubstantiated by any material. As

¶34

regards the non-impleadment of the political party, it was found that there is no material to show possession

¶35

RSA No.980 of 2019

¶36

-: 3 :-

¶37

of the property by the political party. The trial court

¶38

also noticed that the plea of adverse possession is contradictory and destructive to the plea of title urged by them and accordingly negatived the plea. The findings of the trial court were affirmed in appeal. It is challenging the same that this Regular Second Appeal has been filed.

¶39

Heard the appeal for admission.

¶40

The argument of the appellants is that, the suit

¶41

ought to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties viz. the non-impleadment of the political party.

¶42

The courts have concurrently found that there is total absence of any material to find the interest of any third party to the suit. At any rate, the defendants claim to be the office bearers of the organisation. The plea of non-joinder was rightly negatived by the Court.

¶43

The defendants claim that in the year 1950, the

¶44

property was dedicated by the plaintiff's predecessor to the political party and that, since the value of the

¶45

RSA No.980 of 2019

¶46

-: 4 :-

¶47

property was less than ` 50/- no document was

¶48

registered. There is absolutely no evidence to prove the contention.

¶49

No substantial question of law arises for

¶50

consideration in this appeal.

¶51

The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶54

kns/-

¶55

//True Copy//

¶56

P.S. to Judge

Jayakumar @ Nettirachira Jayan v. Ajith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar @ Nettirachira Jayan v. Ajith Kumar

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

Abdul Salam Vs Dolfus

Kochuthressia Vs Seema

Kochu Thressia Vs Seema

Poovammalla Prambath Kandiyan Kunhikanna (Died) Vs Vellamvally Anandan, (Died)

Thoniyott Renjith Vs Meenoth Pavithran

Aravindakshan Vs Vasantha