IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 SA.No. 40 of 2000(D) -------------------- AS.191/1993 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.410/1988 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------ 1. SIVARAMAN, AGED 56; YEARS, S/O.CHAMI ASARI, KARAMPOTTAL HOUSE, NO.4/394, KOZHINCHAMPARA. 2. MADHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. CHAMI ASARI, HOUSE NO.4/393-B, -DO- -DO- 3. CHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.CHAMI, HOUSE NO.4/392, -DO- -DO-\ 4. ARUMUGHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, -DO- -do- 5. RAJAMMAL, AGED 49 YEARS, THEYYALAN PARAMBIL, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 6. THANKA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.PARAMESWARAN, PAPPANAICHENPALAYAM, VELANDIPPALAYAM, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------- KRISHNAN, S/O.LATE CHAMI ASARI, AGED 42 YEARS, KANNAN MEDE, H. NO.3/27, KOZHINCHAMPARA PANCHAYAT VALIYA VALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:' HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------ S.A.NO.40 OF 2000 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.410/88 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.191/93 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the supplemental 2nd plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The trial court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. The parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 2. The original plaintiff in the suit is one Chami Asari. After his death, the supplemental plaintiffs 2 and 3 were impleaded. They are son and wife respectively of the deceased -2- S.A.No.40/2000 Chami Asari. Defendants 1 to 4 are the other sons and supplemental defendants 5 and 6 are the daughters of the deceased Chami Asari. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property belonged to the lst plaintiff. He got the purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, Chittur as per S.M. proceedings No.2444/76. While the lst plaintiff was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property, he constructed a house therein and he has been residing in the said house. He also established a saw mill in the plaint schedule property and has been conducting the saw mill. Defendants are also his children. The plaintiffs further averred that the family property belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants was partitioned as per Ext.A2 partition deed of the year 1978. In Ext.A2 partition deed the properties of the family was divided among the sons of the deceased Chami Asari. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of the deceased Chami Asari and that the defendants have no manner of -3- S.A.No.40/2000 right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. The suit was filed seeking injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. It is said that the defendants are not keeping in good terms with their father and supplemental plaintiffs. The supplemental 2nd plaintiff, after the death of the father, got the plaint amended. In the amended plaint, it was further contended that the supplemental 2nd plaintiff had got absolute right over the plaint schedule property under Will No.139/83 executed by his father and that as per the Will, the mother got the right to take the income from the plaint schedule property during her life time and further pleaded that since the death of the father, the supplemental plaintiffs 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 3. The defendants contested the suit, denied the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit. According to them, the plaint schedule property is not the self acquired property of the deceased lst plaintiff, that the property was -4- S.A.No.40/2000 acquired due to the joint efforts of the father and defendants 1 to 4 and that they have constructed a building in the plaint schedule property and established a saw mill. It is contended that defendants 1 to 4 are co-owners of the property, that the suit was instituted at the instance of the supplemental 2nd plaintiff, who caused to be obtained a Will in his favour, that the deceased father was not capable of understanding things due to his old age and illness and that the Will was executed due to the fraud, coercion and undue influence practiced upon him by the supplemental 2nd plaintiff. 4. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A23 were marked. On the side of the defendants DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B9 were marked. It is the appellants' contention that the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of their father with the income from the family and therefore, they claim joint ownership -5- S.A.No.40/2000 and possession along with the plaintiff. The deceased plaintiff maintained the stand that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property and that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest therein. The trial court examined the question on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The trial court held that there is no evidence to show that the family had any assets placed in the hands of the lst plaintiff as on the date of Ext.A1 to acquire Ext.A1 property with joint family funds. The trial court also taken note of the situation that this property was not included as one of the items of properties in Ext.A2 partition and the trial court held that this property was not blended with the properties included in Ext.A2 partition. The trial court also found that the explanation offered by Dws.1 and 2 are unsatisfactory to clad Ext.A1 property with the status of joint family acquisition. The trial court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently found that the suit property is self acquired property of the deceased father -6- S.A.No.40/2000 and that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the property. 5. The supplemental 2nd plaintiff claimed right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A22 Will executed by the deceased father in his favour subject to the reservation of life estate in favour of the supplemental third plaintiff, who is his mother. The contesting defendants denied the right, title and interest of the supplemental 2nd plaintiff and contended that the suit property is self acquired property of the deceased Chami Asari and that Ext.A22 Will dated 28/10/1983 is not a legal and genuine one. 6. The Lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that the suit property was purchased by the deceased father only and negatived the contention of the defendants that the property was purchased out of the joint funds of the deceased lst plaintiff and the defendants. The court below also held that the saw mill in the plaint schedule -7- S.A.No.40/2000 property was established by the deceased father by availing loan from the State Financial Corporation. The Lower Appellate Court also considered the contention of the defendants regarding the genuineness of the Will. Ext.A22 Will was executed by the deceased father in favour of one of his son who is the supplemental 2nd plaintiff in the suit. The two witnesses to Ext.A22 Will are PW-3 and DW-3. Relying on the evidence of witnesses the Lower Appellate Court held that the deceased father went to the office of the scribe, the Will was prepared as per his direction and the deceased Chami Asari affixed his signature in the Will. The Appellate Court also noticed the evidence of the witnesses that both of them have seen Chami Asari signing the Will. The Appellate Court examined all the important factors concerning the proof of execution of the Will. The court examined in detail the evidence tendered by Dws. 1 to 4 and the documentary evidence. After elaborate scrutiny of the evidence adduced by both sides, the Lower Appellate Court held -8- S.A.No.40/2000 that all the essential requirements of a valid Will have been satisfied, that the Will was proved by examining both the attesting witnesses as required under Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act and that all the alleged suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will have also been removed. The court on evidence held that the supplemental plaintiffs have succeeded in discharging their onus on proving the genuineness of the Will. 7. On a consideration of the questions agitated by the parties, having regard to the contentions raised and the evidence adduced, the facts finding court held that the property belonged to the deceased Chami Asari and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property till his death. The Lower Appellate Court on facts held that Ext.A22 is a genuine Will and under that Will the supplemental plaintiffs 2 and 3 got all the rights which the father had at the time of his death and that the supplemental plaintiffs 2 and 3 step into into his shoes. -9- S.A.No.40/2000 The Lower Appellate Court relying on the evidence of PW1, Dws.1, 2 and 4 also held that after Ext.A2 partition deed each of the male children namely, supplemental 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 had constructed residential buildings in the property allotted to them and that they have started separate residence after Ext.A2 and that they are in enjoyment of the respective properties allotted to them under Ext.A2 partition deed. On facts the Lower Appellate Court also rejected the contention of the defendants that they were residing in the plaint schedule property at the time of filing the suit. The Appellate Court held that since the defendants have disputed the right, title and interest of the supplemental plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are justified in seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction so as to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. 8. The questions agitated by the parties are decided by the courts below on facts. The evidence on record -10- S.A.No.40/2000 was analysed and appreciated by the facts finding courts. The Lower Appellate Court on facts held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for. I find that no valid grounds are made out by the appellants to take a different view and to upset the findings of the Lower Appellate Court. No question of law much less any substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.