IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 429 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AS.142/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA OS.322/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. GOPI, S/O.PARAMAN, MOONUTHENGIL VEEDU, KARUVATTA VADAKKUM MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. RADHAMONY, W/O.GOPI, DO. DO. 3. SULOCHANA, D/O.GOPI, DO. DO. 4. MANJULA, D/O.GOPI, DO. DO. 5. KRISHNAMMA, W/O.REMANAN, RENJU BHAVANAM, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRAKASH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: VISWAMBARAN, S/O.SEKHARAN, ANITHA NIVAS, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SHRI.D.PREM KAMATH(CAVEATOR) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 429 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT The defendants in O.S.No.322/02 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Haripad are the appellants. They assail in this appeal, the concurrent verdicts passed against them by the courts below. 2. The respondent as plaintiff filed O.S.No. 322/02 aforesaid for a decree for recovery of the scheduled property after evicting the defendants from the scheduled property and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from committing any sort of waste in the scheduled property. The defendants resisted the suit contending that they are managing the properties on behalf of the plaintiff in his absence and have invested certain moneys for effecting construction, etc. in the plaint schedule property. 3. The trial court, raising necessary issues for trial and considering the case advanced by both sides, in the light of the evidence adduced at RSA 429/08 2 trial, which consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A8, B1 to B4 and C1, decreed the suit, directing the defendants to give vacant possession of the building situated in the scheduled property to the plaintiff within two months and ordering further that in case of failure, the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the defendants vacated through process of law and further restraining them by a permanent prohibitory injunction from making any addition to the building in the scheduled property or from taking any yield from the schedule property or committing any sort of waste in the building as also in the scheduled property. The appeal filed by the defendants as A.S.No.142/06 before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara was also dismissed, confirming the correctness of the decree passed by the trial court. Hence this Regular Second Appeal by the aggrieved appellants/ defendants. RSA 429/08 3 4. After arguing the case at length, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/defendants have no contention other than that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- had been invested by them in the scheduled building and that they are to get back that amount. If at all they have invested their funds in the scheduled property for any purpose whatsoever, reliefs in that regard are to be sought for in appropriate proceedings. In a suit for eviction based on title, the plaintiff, who is, admittedly, the owner of the scheduled property, is bound to succeed. The questions formulated in the appeal memorandum as substantial questions of law are not even questions of law and much less, any substantial question of law. There is no merit at all in this Regular Second Appeal and there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. This Regular Second Appeal, in the circumstances, is liable to be dismissed in limine, refusing admission. RSA 429/08 4 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants may be granted at least six months' time to vacate the building in the scheduled property and to surrender the premises. The respondent, who has already entered appearance by filing a caveat, has no serious objection in granting six months' time, provided, no further extension will be sought for. In the result, I dismiss this Regular Second Appeal in limine, refusing admission. But, at the same time, I grant six months' time for the appellants/defendants to vacate the building in the scheduled property and to surrender vacant possession of the said premises to the respondent/ plaintiff on condition that no further extension of time will be granted on any account whatsoever. The respondent/plaintiff shall not execute the decree for eviction for a period of six months from today. 18th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv