IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 SA.No. 371 of 1993 ------------------------------- O.S.1030/91 II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA AS.405/1992 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: THANKAMONY, ELLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, IRUMBIL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.THANKAMONY(PARTY) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: KRISHNA PILLAI BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SARASAMANGALAM BUNGLOW, MYPERAMBU, KUNNATHUKAL DESOM, DO. VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- S.A.No. 371 of 1993 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No.1030/91 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara assailing the correctness of the decree concurrently passed against her by both the courts below. The suit filed by the respondent against the appellant was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from blasting and removing the rocks from the plaint scheduled property. Later, the suit was amended seeking for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to vacate from the scheduled property on the ground that the period of licence granted for blasting the rocks had expired. 2. The appellant contended that Exhibit A1, relied on by the respondent/plaintiff, is not a licence agreement, but is a concluded sale of the rocks in the scheduled property and that as the SA 371/93 2 sale of the rocks has been concluded, the respondent is not entitled to get a decree of mandatory injunction restraining her from blasting the rocks. 3. It is considering the above pleadings and the evidence adduced at trial, which consisted of only documentary evidence Exhibit A1, that the trial court repelled the contentions of the appellant and decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendant before the first appellate court as A.S.No.405/92 was also dismissed, concurring with the findings of the trial court against the appellant/defendant. It is against the said concurrent decree and judgment that this appeal is filed. 4. Though this appeal is of the year 1993, the appellant, who is appearing in person and not through Lawyer, is not present and there is none to represent the case on her behalf. Having gone through the concurrent decrees and judgments of the SA 371/93 3 courts below, I do not see any merit at all in this appeal and the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum, on which this appeal was admitted, do not, in fact, arise for consideration in this second appeal. This second appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed. 16th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv SA 371/93 4 K.P.Balachandran, J. --------------------- S.A.No.371 of 1993 --------------------- JUDGMENT 16th June, 2008