IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 SA.No. 84 of 1999(B) -------------------- AS.1/1995 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR OS.397/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLAN/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------- ANTONY ALIAS ANTHAPPAN, S/O.AVIRA, BAVELI, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR. (DIED LRS IMPLEADED) -------------------------------- ADDL.APPELLANTS IMPLEADED ------------------------------------------------- ADDL.A2. EMILY, WIFE OF THE LATE ANTONY , BAVERI HOUSE, DEVASWOM PADAM, VARAPUZHA, VARAPUZHA P.O., PIN 683517. “ A3. STELLA, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE ANTONY, BAVERI HOUSE, DEVASWOM PADAM, VARAPUZHA, VARAPUZHA P.O., PIN 683517. “ A4. MOLY, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE ANTONY, BAVERI HOUSE, DEVASWOM PADAM, VARAPUZHA, VARAPUZHA P.O., PIN 683517. L.Rs. OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 4, AS PER ORDER DATED 4.1.02 ON CMP.2448/01 BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SMT.N.SANTHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEV SHENOY, S/O.GOVINDA SHENOY, EDAVAZHIKKAL, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE. * 2. HARIHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KADATHKADAVIL, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE - (DIED) SA.No. 84 of 1999(B) ----------------------------- 3. JOHN, S/O.OUSEPH, KALLOOR HOUSE, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE. 4. KUNJO, W/O.CHORRY, KALLUVEEDU, (D/O.BOVALI AVIRA), CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE. 5. PHILOMINA ALIAS KOCHAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, MALIYAKKAL, RESIDING AT KAPRAKUNNA, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, KANJOOR. 6. VICTORIA, W/O.JOSEPH, CHULLIKKAD, THAVARKAT, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR. 7. PAULY, W/O.PAPPACHAN, NELKKUNSSERY, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUHJZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR. 8. JOSEPHEENA, THAIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR. 9. ANNAMKUTTY, W/O.VARGHESE, KALLUVEEDU, OLANADU KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARVUR. 10. ANIES, W/O.JOSEPH, KANAPPILLY VEEDU, VALIYIL, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 11. SISTER JOOLY, D/O.MARY, KALLUVEEDU, NOW RESIDING AT ST.JOSEPH CONVENT, KOLLAM. 12. LIZY, W/O.THOMAS, KEEZHIKKARANPARAMBIL, RESIDING AT KUTTANCHALIL, OLANADU KARA, ALANGAND VILLAGE, PARAVUR. 13. PHILOMINA ALIAS AMILI, W/O.JOSEPH, AVALI, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KAIPPILLY VEEDU, POYYA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM. ADDL.R14 TO 16 IMPLEADED ----------------------------------------------- ADDL.R14. PRAKASINI HARIHARAN, W/O.LATE HARIHARAN, KADATHAKADAVIL, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE. “ R15. ANJANA, D/O.LATE HARIHARAN, KADATHAKKADAVIL, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE. SA.No. 84 of 1999(B) -------------------------- ADDL.R16. ANIL, S/O.LATE HARIHARAN, KADATHAKADAVIL, CHERAKKAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE. * ARE IMPLEADED AS LRs OF DECEASED R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 22.11.2010 IN IA. 2681/10. R1 TO R3 & R13 BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.1.2011, THE COURT ON 12/01/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SA.No. 84 of 1999(B) ------------------------------ ORDER ON C.M.APPLN. 817/10 IN SA 84/99 “ IA. 2680/10 & 2681/10 IN SA 84/99 CLOSED 12.01.11 Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.84 of 1999 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January 2011 Judgment The plaintiff in OS No.397/90 before the Munsiff's Court, Paravur, is the appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, he died and his legal heirs have been brought on the party array. The second respondent also died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs also have been brought on record. 2. The scope of this appeal falls within a narrow compass. Fortunately, the facts are not disputed. The properties involved in the suit originally belonged to one Avirah and after his death, the plaintiff and the defendants executed a deed of settlement, which is marked as Ext.A2. There was a clause in the said deed that none of the parties shall alienate the property till the litigations are over. The grievance of the plaintiff was that in violation of the said clause contained in Ext.A2, the fourth defendant executed Ext.A1 document in SA 84/99 2 favour of defendants 1 to 3. Hence the suit. 3. The trial court as well as the appellate court found that there was no justification for setting aside Ext.A1 document as even assuming there was any litigation pending, that has not caused any prejudice to the plaintiff. Before this court, the only contention taken up is that the courts below were not justified in holding that the alienation under Ext.A1 is good and is binding on the plaintiff. Referring to the clause in Ext.A2, it is contended that at the time of execution of Ext.A1, litigations were pending before courts and therefore, the alienation is bad in law. 4. Apart from the fact that both the courts below have found against the said contention, even assuming that there was any litigation at the time of execution of Ext.A1, no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff by way of such an alienation. There is no case for the plaintiff that the result of any of the litigations which he claims to have been pending, has any bearing on the alienation made as per Ext.A1. At best, what could be said is that a second SA 84/99 3 appeal was pending before the High Court and the courts below found that that had nothing to do with the suit properties. Both the courts below have concurrently found that no justifiable reason was made out by the plaintiff to set aside the alienation evidenced by Ext.A1. It is essentially a finding of fact based on the materials on record. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta SA 84/99 4