IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 RSA.No. 333 of 2009() --------------------- AS.114/2000 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.1456/1995 of RENT CONTROL COURT,(Addl.Munsiiff's Court), TVM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/4TH DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------- SARADA D/O. KUNJULEKSHMI, TC 46/896 B, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, MANIKKAM VILAKOM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN SRI.R.SRINATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 & DEFENDANTS 1 - 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.REGUNATHAN H/O. LATE CHELLAMMA, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, PUTHEN VEEDU, MANIKKAM VILAKAM, POONTHURA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.R.BABY SALINI D/O. LATE CHELLAMMA, -DO- -DO- 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 TO 5 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, ALONG WITH RSA NO. 378 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.Nos.333 & 378 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The 4th defendant in O.S.No.1456 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant in R.S.A.No.333 of 2009. The said appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.796 of 1995 of the same court. He is the appellant in the connected case namely R.S.A.No.378 of 2009. The above appeals are directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.114 of 2000 & 285 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The plaintiff in both suits are one and the same person. O.S.No.1456 of 1995 is a suit for declaration, that patta issued to the appellant in LA 1-661/92 on 19/10/1993 in respect of 2 cents of property is illegal and for setting aside the patta. The connected suit filed by the very same plaintiff for injunction restraining the very same defendants by a prohibitory injunction from making any structural alteration to the plaint schedule building or committing any acts of waste in the plaint schedule building. Both suits are decreed. The decree passed by the trial court in both suits are confirmed by the appellate court. Hence the R.S.A.Nos.333 & 378 of 2009 2 appeals. 2. The schedule property is 5 ½ cents of land with a building situated therein. The appellant who contested the suit is a tenant of deceased Chellamma who is the wife of the first plaintiff and the mother of the second plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs the appellant/defendant occupied the building on 01/04/1984 for monthly rent of Rs.40/- and that the status was admitted by the appellant in O.S.No.927 of 1987 which is a suit between the parties on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram and also in O.P.No.7909/1988 of this court. The appellant/defendant originally obtained a patta for 2 cents of property which forms portion of the property including the building which was taken on rent by the tenant from deceased Chellamma. According to the plaintiff the assignment of 2 cents of property in favour of the tenant who is a tenant of the building owned by the plaintiff is illegal and therefore liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the property and the building scheduled in the plaint is the property of the plaintiff and the same was originally owned by R.S.A.Nos.333 & 378 of 2009 3 deceased Chellamma. The appellant who is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.1456/1995 and the first defendant in O.S.No.796/1995 contested the suit. He relied on the assignment proceedings issued by the Tahsildar and maintained that she is entitled to kudikidappu right. It is also contended that the property belongs to the Government and is a puramboke land and therefore the patta issued in favour of the defendant/appellant is valid. 3. For an appropriate adjudication of the dispute between the parties the trial court framed the necessary issues and evidence was taken in O.S.No.1456/1995. Pws.1 to 4, DW.1, Exts.A1 to A26, Exts.B1 to B7 and Ext.X1 are marked. In the connected suit for injunction Pws.1 to 3, DW.1, Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.C1 are marked. After elaborately considering the disputes in question the trial court on facts found that the portion of the land for which patta was issued did not belong to the Government as claimed by the defendants that Exts.B2 to B8 clearly shows that property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff and the predecessor interest as per Ext.A1, that late Chellamma got the D schedule property which is the plaint schedule property in R.S.A.Nos.333 & 378 of 2009 4 this case and subsequent to her death plaintiff acquired the right and title. The trial court held that in the earlier suit and rent control proceedings the status of the defendant as a building tenant is not disputed. In the earlier suit it was found that the defendant was a tenant of the plaint schedule building. Ext.A22 is the decree in O.S.No.796 of 1995. The building and property scheduled in the suit is same in the earlier suit. The trial court also held that the building and property originally belonged to Chellamma and that the building was rented out to the appellant/defendant by deceased Chellamma during the period 1984 for a monthly rent of Rs.40/- and that the very same building is the building in the suit between the appellant/defendant and the plaintiff. In the circumstances the trial court repelled the contention of the defendant/appellant that 2 cents of land and building T.C.46/896 exclusively belonged to them and held that the plaintiff is the title holder. Based on the discussion the trial court further held that the patta issued to the defendant/appellant is not valid and sustainable in law. Therefore the suit was decreed as prayed for. R.S.A.Nos.333 & 378 of 2009 5 4. The connected suit namely O.S.No.796/1995 for injunction was also considered separately by the trial court and was disposed of on 31st October, 1997. The connected suit O.S.No.1456 of 1995 was disposed of on 12th March, 1999. The respective contentions raised were examined and the court concluded that being the title holder the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from making structural alteration to the plaint schedule building or committing any acts of waste in the plaint schedule building. 5. The appellate court by the common judgment disposed of the 2 appeals. The questions agitated before the trial court was again considered and the lower appellate court agreed with the findings of the trial court in all respects and held that the appeals are without merit and therefore dismissed. This court at the instance of the very same defendant as the appellant examined the contentions. This court is of the view that the reasonings and the findings entered by the court are based on facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. The appellant has not made out any valid ground for invoking this court's R.S.A.Nos.333 & 378 of 2009 6 jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skj.