This second appeal challenges the First Appellate Court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff's counter claim for rent arrears and setting aside the trial court's damage award. The High Court held no illegality existed and dismissed both appeals.
Both regular second appeals are dismissed 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 M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946
RSA NO. 276 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2023 IN AS NO.17 OF 2016 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2015 IN OS NO.192 OF 2014 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF&COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANT:
MALIYEKKAL JOSEPH AGED 67 YEARS S/O.BASELIYOSE, BALAVUPARA, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706 BY ADVS. N.ASHOK KUMAR ARJUN S.KURUPP
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS&COUNTER CLAIM PLAINTIFFS: 1 ELIZABETH PAMBLANI AGED 71 YEARS W/O.KURUVACHAN PAMBLANI, CHARAL, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706 2 KURUVACHAN PAMBLANI AGED 72 YEARS S/O.DEVASIA CHARAL, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.07.2024, ALONG WITH RSA.261/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946
RSA NO. 261 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2023 IN AS NO.18 OF 2016 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2015 IN OS NO.192 OF 2014 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF&COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANT:
MALIYEKKAL JOSEPH AGED 67 YEARS S/O.BASELIYOSE, BALAVUPARA, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706
BY ADVS. N.ASHOK KUMAR ARJUN S.KURUPP
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS&COUNTER CLAIM PLAINTIFFS:
1 ELIZABETH PAMBLANI AGED 72 YEARS W/O.KURUVACHAN PAMBLANI, CHARAL, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706 2 KURUVACHAN PAMBLANI AGED 72 YEARS S/O.DEVASIA, CHARAL, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.07.2024, ALONG WITH RSA.276/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals by the plaintiff arise from the common judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S No.17 of 2016 filed by the defendants and A.S No. 18 of 2016 filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S No. 192 of 2014 by which the Trial Court partly allowed the plaint claim and partly allowing the counter claim. The Trial Court allowed the plaint claim by directing the defendants to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as damages to the plaintiff on account of the damage sustained due to the illegal act of the defendants by not permitting the plaintiff to take away his articles. The Trial court allowed the counter claim by directing the plaintiff/ counter claim defendant to pay Rs. 86,80/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty rupees only) towards the arrears of rent from 1/12/2012 to 31/12/2013 with 6% of interest on the principal amount of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of recovery.
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
4
status before the Trial Court.
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
5
man trespassed in the plaint schedule room by breaking the lock of the room and thereafter put a new lock. In spite of repeated request and demands on the part of the plaintiff, the defendants did not allow the plaintiff to remove his articles stored in the rooms.
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
6
rooms and hence they are entitled to get damages of Rs. 1000/per month from the date of the suit till the plaintiff remove the articles by paying rent arrears. On these contentions, the defendants raised a counter claim for arrears of rent and damages of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of the suit till the plaintiff remove articles by paying rent arrears.
The Trial Court found that the plaintiff could not remove the articles on account of the illegal conditions imposed by the
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
7
plaintiff to pay arrears of rent. The Trial Court found that the defendants do not have any lien on the articles kept in the plaint schedule rooms. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part, directing the defendants to pay a damages of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff for the illegal act on the part of the defendants. The defendants filed A.S No.17 of 2016 challenging the direction to pay to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages to the plaintiff in the suit on the contention that the plaintiff did not have any such prayer for the same. The plaintiff filed A.S No. 18 of 2016 for allowing the counter claim directing payment of arrears of rent. By the impugned judgment the First Appellate Court allowed A.S No.17 of 2016 setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial court directing the defendants to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages to the plaintiff and dismissed A.S No. 18 of 2016 filed by the plaintiff.
submitted that, the finding of the first appellate Court that, there was no prayer for the damages is illegal and unsustainable. The plaintiff had made a claim for Rs.20,000/- from the defendants. He also pointed out that, the plaintiff had filed I.A No.4 of 2021 in
A.S No.18 of 2016 for enhancing the compensation amount and
the same was illegally dismissed by the First Appellate Court.
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
8
challenging the direction to pay arrears of rent. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff did not pay rent for the period from 1/12/2012 to 31/12/2013. The case of the plaintiff is that he paid rent upto November 2013. Though he raised a plea of discharge, he did not prove the same. So, he is bound to pay arrears of rent as ordered by the Trial Court. I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the first appellate court dismissing A.S No.18 of 2016 also.
RSA Nos. 261 &276 OF 2024
9
Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed without
cost.
Sd/M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE
Anu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court committed illegality in setting aside the suit decree directing defendants to pay Rs. 10,000 damages.
Whether the First Appellate Court committed illegality in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal challenging the direction to pay arrears of rent.
MALIYEKKAL JOSEPH
ELIZABETH PAMBLANI
KURUVACHAN PAMBLANI
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
