IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RSA.No. 856 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2006 IN AS. 67 /2000 IN AS.46/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.414/1995 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KELU, AGED 72, RAJANI MANDIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, THAZHEKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 2. V.P.GOWRI, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 64, RAJANI MANDIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, THAZHEKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. SREEKANTHAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 25 RAJANI MANDIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, THAZHEKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------ 1. N.K.NARAYANAN, S/O. CHERYEKKAN, AGED 72, PALAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMANCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. V.P.DHAKSHIYAYINI, W/O. N.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 61, PALAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMANCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ................................................... R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008 .................................................... DATED: 2-12-2008 JUDGMENT Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 414 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The said suit instituted by the respondents herein was one for mandatory injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants are in permissive occupation of the building in question and that the plaintiffs had revoked the permission to occupy the building by issuing notice to the defendants. Defendants on the other hand contended that they have perfected title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. The courts below accepted the plaintiff's case and held that the defendants were permitted to occupy the house situated in the plaint A schedule property in the year 1983 in view of the close R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008 -:2:- relationship between the parties. Since the occupation of the appellants was permissive in nature, they could not plead adverse possession and limitation since it is well settle that permissive possession can never be adverse. The findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal also do not arise for determination in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 2nd December 2008. Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE /true copy/ ani R.S.A. No. 856 of 2008 -:3:-