Balan Vs Omana P.K

¶1

2025:KER:28612

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

RSA NO. 211 OF 2025

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2025 IN AS
NO.3 OF 2022 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2022 IN OS NO.65
OF 2019 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, THAMARASSERY

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

BALAN

¶10

AGED 65 YEARS
S/O UNNIRAMAN, PILATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
NELLIKKAPOYIL, KALLURUTTI P.O,
NEELESEWARAMAMSOMDESOM THAMARASSERY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673582

¶11

BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN
AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶12

2025:KER:28612

¶13

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶14

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶16

1 OMANA P.K
AGED 72 YEARS
W/O LATE SIVARAMAN POTTUKULATH HOUSE,
THIRUVAMBADI DESOM THAMBALAMANNA P.O,
THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶17

2 RAJEEV P.S AGED 52 YEARS S/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶18

3 SUBHASH P.S AGED 50 YEARS S/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶19

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.04.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.212/2025, 215/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

2025:KER:28612

¶21

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶26

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶27

RSA NO. 212 OF 2025

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2025 IN AS
NO.4 OF 2022 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2022 IN OS NO.337
OF 2019 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, THAMARASSERY

¶29

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶30

BABY VARGHESE
AGED 55 YEARS

¶31

S/O ILAVANKAL VARGHESE ILAVANKAL HOUSE,
KOODARANHIAMSOMDESOM MARANCHATTY P.O,
THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673604

¶32

BY ADVS.

¶33

P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN

¶34

2025:KER:28612

¶35

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶36

¶37

SAHAL SHAJAHAN
AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶39

1 OMANA P.K AGED 72 YEARS W/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶40

2 RAJEEV P.S AGED 52 YEARS S/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶41

3 SUBHASH P.S AGED 52 YEARS S/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶42

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.04.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.211/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

2025:KER:28612

¶44

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶45

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶49

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶50

RSA NO. 215OF 2025

¶51

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2025 IN AS
NO.2 OF 2022 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2022 IN OS NO.12
OF 2019 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, THAMARASSERY

¶52

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶53

VINCENT M.M
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KURIAKOSE, ERATHADATHIL HOUSE THIRUVAMBADI
AMSOMDESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY
TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶54

BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN

¶55

2025:KER:28612

¶56

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶57

¶58

AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶59

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶60

1 OMANA P.K AGED 72 YEARS W/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶61

2 RAJEEV P.S AGED 52 YEARS S/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶62

3 SUBHASH P.S AGED 50 YEARS S/O LATE SIVARAMAN, POTTUKULATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI DESOM, THAMBALAMANNA P.O, THAMARASSERY TALUK, PIN - 673603

¶63

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.04.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.211/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶64

2025:KER:28612

¶65

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶66

¶67

JUDGMENT

¶68

These three appeals arise from three identical suits instituted by the same plaintiffs, these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. Suits are filed for mandatory injunction to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule properties, which are shop rooms. Later the prayer for recovery of possession was also included by way of amendment.

¶69

The defendant in the suits is the appellant in these appeals. They have arrangements with the plaintiffs for the occupation of the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, it is a license arrangement. They have sought a mandatory injunction to evict the defendants from the plaint schedule properties on the contention that the license

¶70

2025:KER:28612

¶71

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶72

¶73

is terminated by issuing notice to them.

¶74

The defendant opposed the suit prayers by filing a written statement contending that the arrangement is a lease and not a license.

¶75

The Trial Court rejected the contention and decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs finding that the arrangement is a license. Though the defendants filed appeals before the First Appellate Court, the same were dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶76

I heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri.Mohmmed Shah.

¶77

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

¶78

recitals in Ext.A1 document would show that it is a lease

¶79

2025:KER:28612

¶80

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶81

¶82

agreement and not a license agreement. Any kind of control over the plaint schedule property is reserved in favour of the plaintiffs. No proper notice for terminating the lease was issued to the defendants. The suits as framed

¶83

are not maintainable.

¶84

I have considered the contentions.

¶85

The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, after going through the recitals in Ext.A1 agreement in all these cases, found that the arrangement between the plaintiffs and the defendant is a license and not a lease. On going through the recitals in those documents, I also do not find any ground or reason to take a different view. The defendants have no case that they signed those documents without understanding the contents of the

¶86

¶87

2025:KER:28612

¶88

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶89

same. The plaintiff issued a notice terminating the license

¶90

to the defendants, specifically stating that the arrangement is a license. No reply was sent by the defendants disputing the same.

¶91

The Trial Court granted a decree for mandatory injunction as well as recovery of possession against the defendants. The Appellate Court, though, dismissed the appeals, interfered with the decree, and set aside the decree for recovery of possession against the defendants. The Appellate Court set aside the decree for recovery of possession and limited it to the decree for mandatory injunction. No substantial question of law arises in the matter. I do not find any ground or reason for interfering with the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court

¶92

2025:KER:28612

¶93

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶94

¶95

as well as the First Appellate Court.

¶96

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been conducting business in the plaint schedule properties for a considerable length of time and an immediate eviction from the plaint schedule premises will destroy their business and they need at least one year time to relocate their business to another premises after

¶97

finding an alternate accommodation.

¶98

In view of the said contention, even though I am not entertaining the Regular Second Appeal, I am of the view that the appellants can be given a period of six months to vacate the plaint schedule premises subject to conditions.

¶99

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss these Regular Second Appeals but at the same time permit the

¶100

2025:KER:28612

¶101

RSA Nos.211, 212 & 215 OF 2025

¶102

appellants to occupy the plaint schedule premises subject to the condition that the appellants shall file an Affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to vacate the plaint schedule premises within a period of six months from today and subject to further conditions that the appellant shall clear all the arrears of rent/compensation till today within one month and shall also continue to pay the compensation ordered by the Trial Court till vacating the premises. Execution proceedings are kept in abeyance in the meantime. If the appellants violate any of the conditions, the respondents are free to execute the decree forthwith.

¶103

Sd/-

¶104

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE

¶105

sms

Balan v. Omana P.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balan v. Omana P.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanumathy Vs Sree Narayana Trust, Kollam

Angadiprath Joshina Vs Sunitha P.P.

Kozhummal Puthiyapurayil Pathumma Vs Kozhuppattil Puthiyapurayil Rabiya

Lalitha, Vs Vijayakumar

Baby Varghese Vs Omana P.K

Vincent M.M Vs Omana P.K