IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RSA.No. 1189 of 2008() ---------------------- AS.202/2005 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.311/2001 of II ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDAT:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M. AMMINI, D/O. SUBBAYAN, T.C.26/1354, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANAVILA ROAD, SECRETARIAT WARD, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. REJENDRAN, S/O. SUBBAYYAN, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, THACKALAI, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- GOPALAN, S/O. APPAVU, T.C. 26/1358, PANAYIL VEEDU, PANAVILA ROAD, SECRETARIAT, WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A.No.1189 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19 th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.311/2001 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants in this second appeal. The said suit was one for declaration of the possessory right of the plaintiffs and for recovery of possession with mesne profits and for perpetual injunction as against the 1st defendant- Gopalan. 2. The plaintiff claimed possessory right over the plaint A Schedule Property and contended that she along with her predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the property over more than 60 years and they had perfected title by adverse possession. 3. Since the property is admittedly a purampoke land, the courts below held that the claim for the declaratory relief, without the Government on the party array, could not be granted. With regard to the plaint B Schedule Property which is R.S.A.No.1189 of 2008 2 a portion of the building standing in the plaint A schedule property, the courts below held that the plaintiff's claim that the 1st defendant was her tenant has not been substantiated and that the 1st defendant was in possession of the plaint B Schedule Property in his own right for the past more than 15 years. Hence recovery of possession of the plaint B Schedule Property was disallowed. The courts below, however, declared the possessory right of the plaintiff over the plaint C Schedule Property which are portions of two rooms of the building situated in the plaint A schedule property. The said finding concurrently recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be wrong. Since the land admittedly belong to the Government, the plaintiff's claim for establishing her possessory right over the same could not be granted without the Government on the party array. 4. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the decrees passed by the courts below. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise for consideration in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. R.S.A.No.1189 of 2008 3 It is, however, clarified that this will not preclude the plaintiff from filing a properly instituted suit with the Government on the party array for declaration of his possessory right, if the plaintiff is so entitled. Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj