IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 AS.No. 278 of 1996() -------------------- OS.457/1993 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: ----------- 1. N.K.VIMALA, WIFE OF BALANGANGADHARAN, 9, JUDGE'S VENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, COCHIN – 682 017. 2. B.V.PRADEEP, S/O. BALANGANGADHARAN, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 9, JUDGE'S VENUE, INDIARA NAGAR, COCHIN 17. 3. B.V.DEEPAK, S/O. BALAGANGADHARAN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 4. MRS. B.V.ROSHNI, D/O. BALAGANGADHARAN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT DO DO. 5. B.V.ARUN, S/O. BALAGANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.N.V.RAMACHANDRAN,DEMA PRAKASH.E. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI – 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GREATHER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI 682 020. 2. SMT. ACHAMMA KAVOOR, WIFE OF C.J. JOHN, NECHUPADOM HOUE, CHENNAKAT KALANGAMARIYIL, KADAYIRUPPU, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOSEPH SRI.JIMMY GEORGE FOR R.1 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, ALONG WITH A.S. NO.176/1996 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- A.S.NOS. 176 & 278 OF 1996 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July , 2008 JUDGMENT These appeals have been filed respectively by the plaintiffs and by the first defendant – Greater Cochin Development Authority. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are not liable to pay any amount to the first defendant – GCDA either by way of enhanced compensation or by developmental charges and also for a consequential injunction restraining the first defendant- GCDA from taking any action for the recovery of the sum of Rs.43,626.70 which had been demanded from the plaintiffs as per Ext.A3 and other demand notices. The suit property consists of a plot and residential building put up therein. The plots were developed by the first defendant GCDA after acquiring lands from various other parties. The plot was allotted by the GCDA to the second defendant Smt.Achamma Kovoor and one of the conditions of the allotment was that there was an escalation A.S. No.176/1996 & another 2 clause, which was to the effect that in the event of GCDA making demands for the amounts on the basis of the court orders and like orders the allottee will become liable to honour such demands. Smt.Achamma Kovoor would put up residential building on the plot and thereafter the plaintiffs appellants would purchase the entire property from Sri. Achamma Kovoor by taking sale deed. The Conditions of allotment has been specifically incorporated in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The GCDA would issue notice to the appellants obviously, on the basis of enhancement of land value by the Land Acquisition Reference Court in reference cases which had been registered at the instance of the original owners of the land. It is the receipt of such demand by the plaintiffs which is shown as cause of action on the basis of which the suit has been instituted by the appellants. The first defendant GCDA filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned Subordinate Judge formulated the following issues for trial; 1. Whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay any amounts to the 1st defendant representing enhanced compensation or developmental A.S. No.176/1996 & another 3 charges, if so, to what extent? 2. Whether the declaration prayed for is allowable? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for ? 2. On trial the evidence in these cases consisted of Ext.A1 to A6 on the side of the plaintiffs and Ext.B1 to B7 on the side of the first defendant. The second defendant did not raise any contest. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were considered by the learned subordinate judge first and under those issues it was found by the learned subordinate judge that the plaintiffs are bound by the allotment conditions in Ext.B2 and they would take the property only subject to the rights and liabilities imposed as per the original allotment in favour of the second defendant and therefore they cannot escape from the liability of making payment to the GCDA on the basis of the court orders and like events. In that view of the matter relief of declaration sought for was declined. Though relief of injunction was sought for only as a consequential relief to the relief of declaration, the learned subordinate judge would treat the relief of injunction as A.S. No.176/1996 & another 4 an independent relief and would answer issue No.3. regarding that relief in favour of the plaintiffs. I have re-appreciated the evidence in the light of the pleadings raised by the parties. I am of the view that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge was quite proper and findings entered on all the issues cannot be said to be faulty. The petitioners need not have any grievance. If fresh demands are made on the petitioners pursuant to the impugned judgment it is always open to them to deny the extent of their liability on all available grounds and reasons. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment under appeal. Both these appeals will stand dismissed, however without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk A.S. No.176/1996 & another 5 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- A.S.NOS. 176 & 278 OF 1996 ---------------------------------- JUDGMENT 17TH JULY 2008