IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 SA.No. 621 of 1993(G) --------------------- AS.15/1988 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.174/1984 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------- KOOTHUMADAN SAIDALI, S/O.BEERAN, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPUTAM DISTRICT (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) SUPPL.APPELLANTS 2. KUNHI PATHUMMA.K., AGED 78, W/O.KOOTHUMADAN SAIDALI KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. KOOTHUMADAN KADIYABUTTY, D/O.LATE SAIDALI, P.O.RANDATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4. KOOTHUMADAN KUNHAUO SUMMA, D/O.LATE SAIDALI P.O.KARUMPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 5. KOOTHUMADAN FATHIMA KUTTY, D/O.LATE SAIDALI P.O.RANDATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 6. KOOTHUMADAN SAINABA, D/O. LATE SAIDALI, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 7. KOOTHUMADAN MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.LATE SAIDALI P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 AS PER ORDER DATED 11/8/05 IN IA 1532/05 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, MEENA.A, MINI.M.R., JAYKAR.K.S RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. ALANGADAN KUNHAVARU, S/O.ALASSANKUTTY HAJI, PARAPPUR AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.PARAPPUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PATTARKADAVAN KUNHATHUMMA, W/O.KUNHAVARU, -DO- BY ADV. SRI T R GOVINDA WARIYER (SR.) SRI.P.V.REMA WARIYAR SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (B/O) THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO. 1481/93 IN SA 621/93 DISMISSED 7/1/2008 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- S.A.No. 621 OF 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006 O R D E R Heard. Admitted. Second appeal to be heard on the following substantial question of law:- When the suit from which this second appeal arises was for injunction simplicitor and the trial court had, after an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not established possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of suit, was the lower appellate court justified in interfering with the said finding and granting a decree to the plaintiff by going into the measurements in the title deed and ignoring the other documents produced by the plaintiff to support the claim of possession? Post on 15.11.2006. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dsn