IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 SA.No. 683 of 1996() ------------------------------ AS.58/1995 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOCHI OS.212/1993 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------- MRS.ARIFA BEEVI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.H. HAMSA KOYA, RESIDING AT 2/667, KUNNUMPURAM, FORTKOCHI, COCHIM-682 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN, SRI.V.V.ASOKAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- MR.D.N. BABU, 21/1770, KUMBALANGHI VAZHI, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682 006. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SA.No. 683 of 1996 ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.1453/1996 IN S.A. NO.683/1996 DISMISSED 19/05/2010. SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE rs P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 683 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed and whose appeal was also dismissed, is the appellant. 2. The suit is one for prohibitory injunction. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is admitted. The defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff. Accusing the defendant of attempting to sublet the premises and also making alternations in the property, the suit was laid. 3. The defendant entered appearance and resisted the suit. It was pointed out by him that he had no intention to sublet the premises and he had not made any additional structures. According to him all that he had done was to make some repairs for conducting his business. S.A.683/1996. 2 4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.C1 commission report. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. The trial court on an evaluation of the materials before it came to the conclusion that the there is no justification for the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. Incidentally it was also found that the activities done on the structure was in the nature of repairs and not as additional structures. 5. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The appellate court on an independent evaluation of the materials came to the same conclusion as that of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. The two grounds taken were that the defendant was trying to make additional structures and also that he was trying to sublet. Both the contentions were found against by both the courts below on an appreciation of the available materials before them. There is nothing to S.A.683/1996. 3 indicate that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or not justified on the evidence available on record. The findings are essentially based on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is without merits and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. S.A.683/1996. 4 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 683 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 19.05.2010