IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 SA.No. 454 of 1996() ------------------------------ AS.52/1995 of PRL.SUB COURT,THALASSERY OS.245/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT -------------------- VAYANKKARA PADINHARE VEETTIL, BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ KARAYAN VIJAYAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. =============== S.A. No.454 of 1996 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.245 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thalassery is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The respondent is the sole defendant therein. The suit instituted by the appellant plaintiff to set aside the decree and judgment passed by this Court in S.A.No.546 of 1990, by the Additional District Court, Thalassery in A.S.No.23 of 1987 and by the Court of the Munsiff of Thalassery in O.S.No.133 of 1985 and for recovery of possession of the suit property was dismissed by the trial court. The decree of dismissal passed by the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. 2. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that in O.S.No.133 of 1985 filed by the appellant against the respondent herein for a permanent prohibitory injunction, the trial court, the lower appellate court and this Court had held that the plaintiff does not have title to and is not in possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed holding that the appellant does not have title to the property. In the instant case, what the appellant seeks is to set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, the lower appellate court and this Court in the said suit and to recover possession of the very same SA 454/96 -: 2 :- property. As noticed by the trial court, the averments in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action. In fact, no grounds are set out in the plaint justifying the grant of the reliefs sought for by the appellant. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The lower appellate court also noticed that the suit is barred by res judicata as well. On going through the pleadings and the materials on record, I am of the considered opinion that the judgments passed by the courts below do not merit any interference. Further, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this Second Appeal. In the result, the Second Appeals fails and is dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 17/1