IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 SA.No. 723 of 1997(A) --------------------- AS.91/1993 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.973/1990 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFFS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------- SOSAMMA VARGHESE, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VALANJAVATTOM, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSAMMA MAMMEN, KELAPARAMBIL. THOPPIL, PALIYAKARA, THIRUVALLA. 2. P.O.GEORGE. POOVANVELIL, NIRANAM, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.723 of 1997-C ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2011 Judgment The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that the defendants have no intention to trespass into the property. It was also found that there was no cause of action or no threat of trespass by the defendants. On that ground, the suit was dismissed. 3. Though the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal, the appellate court too concurred with the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in case this court finds that there is no cause of action, his remedy to approach the court in future if he apprehends any threat, may be reserved. Both the courts below have found that there is no subsisting threat by the defendants, of trespass into the suit property. It is true that both the courts below have found that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. Both the SA 723/97 2 courts below are justified in dismissing the suit. No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment and decree of the courts below. If any threat is caused in future, the plaintiff will be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, this second appeal is dismissed. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta SA 723/97 3