IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 1224 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.92/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI OS.158/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAZAK, 37 YEARS, S/O.PARAMBAN MOIDEEN, PARAMBAN HOUSE, VETTIKKATTIRI AMSOM, VALLUVANGAD DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHIANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VETTIKATTIRI VILLAGE, VETTIKATTIRI (PO), PALAKKAD, PIN-679 531. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RSA.No. 1224 of 2010 :2: ORDER IN I.A.NO.2858/2010 IN R.S.A.NO.1224/2010 Closed ORDER IN I.A.NO.2857/2010 IN R.S.A.NO.1224/2010 Closed ORDER IN C.M.APPL.NO.901/2010 IN R.S.A.NO.1224/2010 Closed Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN 15.11.2010 //True Copy// P.A to Judge S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1224 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in a suit for injunction has filed this appeal. Two items of properties are scheduled in the plaint. His case in brief is that the properties are lying contiguously, and it comprises of a rocky area, over which, the defendant State has raised a claim that it belongs to the Government. Claiming title, possession and enjoyment over the properties, was the plaintiff sought the relief of injunction. Suit claim was resisted by the defendants contending that the description of the plaint property was wrong and the rocky area, over which the plaintiff has set up title and possession belongs to the Government. On the materials placed, the trial court found that the plaintiff had applied for assignment of the rocky area described in the plaint admitting that it belong to the Government. The plaintiff was found not entitled to the relief of injunction and he was non-suited. Challenge against the dismissal of the suit, by way of appeal, was turned down by the lower appellate court. Concurrent decision so rendered by the R.S.A No.1224 OF 2010 2 two courts below dismissing the claim of injunction canvassed for is challenged in this appeal. 2. I heard the counsel for the appellant. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing the judgments rendered by the trial court and also the lower appellate court, I find no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, on which alone a second appeal is entertainable under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even assuming that the admission made by the plaintiff by making an application for assignment of the rocky area covered by the plaint schedule was wrong and there was no need for him to seek such assignment, it is open to him to plead and prove those facts by filing a comprehensive suit for declaration of his title over the plaint properties, if so advised. Reserving his right to do so, this appeal is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE dmb