IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 RSA.No. 991 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.13/2007 of SUB COURT, KOCHI OS.38/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: VARGHESE, AGED 43 S/O. JOSEPH, ARAKKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. BABY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, THANIPPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, EAST KUDUNGASSERY BUS STOP, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. JIBBIN, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 27, ELECTRICIAN, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- R.S.A.No.991 of 2008 -------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the appellant. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.38/06 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kochi is the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent verdicts passed against him by the courts below. 3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit aforesaid for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. That suit was dismissed, against which, he has filed A.S.No.13/07. That appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate court, confirming the correctness of the decree of the trial court. 4. The appellant/plaintiff is the purchaser of the scheduled property from the defendant in O.S. No.486/05. That was a suit filed by A.T.Joseph, the husband of the first respondent/first defendant and the father of the second respondent/second defendant. RSA 991/08 2 The respondents/defendants have no independent title, but their claim was under the plaintiff in O.S.No.486/05. Even according to the appellant/ plaintiff, he is a transferee pendente lite of a portion of the property involved in O.S.No.486/05 from Thomas, the defendant in that suit. The respondents herein are the wife and son of the plaintiff in that suit and they have no independent right over the scheduled property otherwise than through the plaintiff in O.S.No.486/05. The result is that rights of the parties will depend upon the ultimate result of O.S.No.486/05 and the suit O.S. No.38/06 has absolutely no independent existence to determine the rights of the parties. Therefore, there is no merit in prosecuting this Regular Second Appeal and there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal. In the result, I dispose of this Regular Second Appeal in limine without prejudice to the rights of RSA 991/08 3 the appellant/plaintiff under his vendor Thomas, the defendant in O.S.No.486/05, which shall be subject to the final result of O.S.No.486/05. 17th March, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv