IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 484 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.171/1999 Dated 24/05/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT : ------------------------------------------------------- E.A.ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT ELAYARI THOTATHIL, AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. PAYYADAKKATH SYAMALA, D/O.KARUNAKARAN NARI, RESIDING AT KOTTAYI HOUSE, AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.K.SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN ADIYODI, CHEMMANACHERY HOUSE, KOLLADA, VAYAKARA VILLAGE, P.O.PODIYOTCHAL, VIA. PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 3. P.V.AMMALU AMMA, W/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. P.V.PRASANNA, D/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. P.V.DIVAKARAN, S/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. RP.No. 484 of 2011() 2 6. P.V.SANJEEVANI, D/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. P.V.SAVITHRI, D/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. P.V.SATHEESHAN, S/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. P.V.SATHI, D/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 10. P.V.RAKESH, S/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT AYYANNUR, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.KAMBALOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M. SASINDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011 ALONG WITH RP 485/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- R.P.Nos.484 & 485 of 2011 in S.A.Nos.171 and 170 of 1999 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 ORDER The review petitioner is the appellant in S.A.Nos.170/1999 and 171/1999. 2. The two suits for injunction were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. The trial court decreed O.S.No.212/1995 and dismissed O.S.No.211/1995. The plaintiff in O.S.211/1995 preferred two appeals before the lower appellate court as A.S.Nos.61/1996 and 62/1996 where the appellant was successful and reversed the decree of the trial court. 3. Both the suits were for injunction. This court relying on the commissioner's report and other circumstances revealed from the evidence concurred with the lower appellate court that the plaintiff in O.S.No.211/1995 had succeeded in proving that he is in possession of a plot shown as A B C D E by the commissioner. 4. It is now pointed out that this Court had not taken note of the boundaries of the Exts.A1 and A2 and if that was done the decision would have been otherwise. R.P.Nos.484 & 485 of 2011 2 5. This Court noticed that the suits being only for injunction, the question of possession alone was relevant. This Court had also occasion to note that while the plaintiff in O.S.212/1995 had got his property identified and there was no such attempt from the side of the defendant to do so. This court had found that the main case of the appellant was that a portion of the property of the respondents herein were taken for widening of a pathway was false. The commissioner report discloses that plots A B C D E is lying as a compact plot and has same nature of improvement. This Court also found that the claim made by the appellant that they had planted rubber in the plots cannot be true. It appears that there was no objection to the commissioner's report and at any rate there was no attempt to show that the data given by the commissioner is wrong. It was the above facts which weighed with this court and the lower appellate court is correct in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff in O.S.211/1995 was successful in showing that he is in possession of the suit property. It was made clear that the R.P.Nos.484 & 485 of 2011 3 judgments of the lower appellate court and this Court that the question of title is irrelevant in a suit for injunction and question of title is left open. These petitions are without any merits and they are liable to be dismissed. I do so. Accordingly, the Review Petitions are dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln