IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RSA.No. 85 of 2005(B) --------------------- AS.162/1995 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.136/1988 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT,PONNANI .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN AS/PLAINTIFF IN OS: ------------------------------------------------------------- RAJALAKSHMI, D/O.MELEPPAT BHARATHI, ALIAS THANKAMMU AMMA, MALABAR WIRES & ALLIED PRODUCTS, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN A.S/DEFENDANTS IN O.S: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VATTAMKULAM, PANCHAYATH, KULANGARA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, BHARANA SAMITHI-PRESIDENT, THRIKKANDIYUR, GOPALA MENON, R/A. KAPPOOR AMSOM KOLLANNOOR DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. VATTAMKULAM PANCHAYATH KULANGARA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, BHARANA SAMITHI SECRETARY, CHILLAKKAT (MAREKKAT, BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, R/A. KUTTIPPALA AMSOM, SUKAPURAM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK. (RESPPONDENTS REPRESENTED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE KULANGARA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE BHARANASAMITHI) ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL FOR R.2 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- R.S.A No: 85 OF 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.136/1988 on the file of the Munsiff- Magistrate Court, Ponnani is the appellant in the second appeal. The said suit was for recovery of possession of the plaint A schedule property having a measurement of 18 feet x 4 feet alleged to be part of the plaint B schedule property admeasuring 5 ½ cents and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the encroaching structures in the plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff-Rajalakshmi claimed to be an allottee of the plaint B schedule property as per Ext. X1 partition deed dated 25.6.1987. The allottees under Ext.X1 partition deed in turn obtained the properties for their tavazhy as per the judgment and decree in O.S.310/1946 evidenced by Ext.B1 final decree dated 30.1.1948. 2. Both the courts have held that the plaint A schedule property extends only up to the line CB in Ext.C4 plan prepared by -2- RSA 85/2005 the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the trial court. The plaint B schedule property in O.S.136/1988 has been identified by the Commissioner as plot ABCD in Ext.C4 plan. If so, the allegation of the plaintiff that a portion of the basement constructed by the defendants in their northern property encroaches into the plaint B schedule property was rightly rejected by the courts below. The finding recorded by the courts below is a pure finding of fact, so that there cannot be any question of law, much less any substantial question of law to be considered in this second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. V. RAMKUMAR JUDGE jj