IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 325 of 1997(E) ----------------------------- AS.118/1993 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR OS.394/1990 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT --------------------------- THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF ------------------------- K.K.DASAN, VRINDAVAN HOUSE, H.NO.2116 A, KALOOR, COCHIN 17. BY SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN THIS SECOND APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ S.A.No.325 Of 1997 and Cross Objection ---------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The defendant in O.S.No.394 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur is the appellant. The defendant in the suit is GCDA, Kadavanthra. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to recover any amount on account of development charges or on the basis of the alleged payment of any enhanced payment due to acquisition proceedings and for consequential injunction. The demand for additional payment were made on the specific clause of the relevant documents as agreed, accepted and executed by the persons like the plaintiff. The suit was jointly tried along with several other connected suits. The trial court held that the clause incorporated in the allotment of development charges or any amounts paid as enhanced compensation from the respective allottees is legal and valid. On the basis of the said finding the trial court dismissed the suit. Trial court disallowed the prayer for declaration but allowed the prayer for injunction. The decree granted is for permanent S.A.No.325 Of 1997 & cross objection ::2:: prohibitory injunction. In the second appeal filed against one of the connected suit, this Court restored the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration sought for by her. This Court also held that the reasons given by the trial court for not granting relief of injunction are sound and the reasons given by the lower appellate court for interfering with the refusal of relief by the trial court are unsound. This Court also held that the trial court was right in taking a view that there is nothing unreasonable or unjust in the amount claimed by the defendant. In view of the covered position extracted above in the Second Appeal 173 of 1997, plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs. Accordingly, the decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the decree and judgment passed by the trial court is restored. In the result, appeal is allowed and the cross objection stands dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-