IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 RSA.No. 509 of 2008() --------------------- AS.34/2004 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.158/1984 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... APPELLANTS: -------------------- 1. PADINHARE THAYYAIL JANU, D/O.KELU, RESIDING AT KOLAVALLUR AMSOM AND DESOM THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR. 2. KAKKOTTUKUNIYIL NALINI D/O.PADINHARE THAYYIL JANU, RESIDING AT DO.DO. 3. KAKKOTTUKUNIYIL SATHYANATHAN, S/O.PADINHARE THAYYIL JANU, RESIDING AT DO.DO. 4. KAKKOTTUKUNIYIL SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PADINHARE THAYYIL JANU, RESIDING AT DO.DO. 5. KAKKOTTUKUNIYIL RAJESH, S/O.PADINHARE THAYYIL JANU, RESIDING AT DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.G.RAJAGOPALAN 2 RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.MAROLI KORUMBAN, RESIDING AT KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR 2. OORALOYATHIL KARAYARAMBAN GOVINDAN, S/O.KANNAN, RESIDING AT DO.DO. 3. MARFOLI NANU, S/O.MAROLI KUMARAN, DO.DO, . 4. MAROLI GOVINDAN, S/O.MAROLI KUMARAN,DO. DO. 5. MAROLI KANNA OF DO.DO. 6. MAROLI SARADA, D/O.MAROLI KUMARAN,DO.DO. 7. MUTHARINTAVIDA VANDIYAI NANI,DO.DO. 8. MALLISSERINTAVIDA MAROLI SHYLAJA,DO.DO. 9. MULLISSERINTAVIDA MAROLI HEMA,DO.DO. 10. MAROLI SAKUNTHALA, DO.DO. 11. MAROLI INDIRA, RESIDING AT PINARAYI AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR 12. PODIKUNNAN MOOSA HAJI, S/O/KUNHAMMED, RESIDING AT KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 13. CHAKKYARKUNNUMMAL KOKKARI MOIDU, S/O.MAMMAD, RESIDING AT TRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3 14. KAYYARAMBAN CHATHU, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 15. THEKKAYIL KANDIANTAVIDA CHEEROOTTY, W/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT DO- DO. 16. DASAN, S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT DO-DO. 17. MOHANAN, S/O.KUMARAN RESIDING AT DO- DO. 18. SUGATHA, D/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 19. LATHA D/O.KUMARAN RESIDING AT DO-DO. 20. REGHUNATH, S/O. KUMARAN, RESIDING AT DO- DO. 21. SASIDHARAN. S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT DO-DO. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A.No.509 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 6 (L.Rs of the original plaintiff) in O.S.No.158 of 1984 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The said suit was for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property admeasuring 1.23 aces. 2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The plaint B schedule property forms part of the plaint A schedule property having an extent of 5.81 acres. The Plaint A schedule property along with other items belonged in Jenm to Thekke Illam Tharavad. As per Ext.A1 Kanam Kuzhikanam deed dated 27.3.1903, the plaint A Schedule property and other properties were taken on lease by one Kannan and his mother Prikkachi on behalf of their Thavazhy. In Ext.A2 Thavazhy partition deed dated 17.5.1953 items 1 to 4 of R.S.A.No.509 of 2008 2 Ext.A1 Kanam Kuzhikanam were divided and alloted to various shares. The plaintiff's father purchased the share of all sharers except the share of Maroli Kannan and Maroli Kunhiraman. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as the absolute owners. The 1st defendant is in possession of the property lying on the eastern boundary of the plaint A schedule property. Further to the east of the said property is the property of one Arayakandi Govindan. The said Govindan filed O.S.No.79 of 1979 before the Sub Court, Thalassery for recovery of possession of the western plot which is said to have been trespassed upon by the defendants 1 and 2 herein. The said suit was ultimately decreed and Govindan took delivery of the said property . Having lost the case with Govindan, defendants 1 and 2 herein attempted to trespass into the plaint B Schedule property and hence the suit. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff has no title or possession over the plaint B Schedule property and that the plaint B Schedule R.S.A.No.509 of 2008 3 property is not taken in by the title deeds put forward by the plaintiffs. 4. The courts below have, after trial, concurrently found that the plaint B Schedule property is not covered by the title deeds relied on by the plaintiffs and have therefore refused to grant a decree in their favour. It is the said decree which is assailed in this second appeal. 5. Eventhough the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the findings recorded by the court below on various grounds, I am not inclined to accept the appellant's contention that the second appeal raises any of the questions of law formulated in paragraph 18 of the memorandum of appeal. The findings recorded are pure findings of fact and no questions of law much less any substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal so as to justify the admission of the second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 C.P.C. The courts below have painstakingly considered the identity of various plots in the Commissioner's plan and report with reference to the title R.S.A.No.509 of 2008 4 deeds put forward by both sides. It is possibly to point out mistakes in any judgment. But unless those mistakes profoundly give rise to errors of law which answer the description of substantial questions of law, this Court will not justified in going in to the entire gamut of factual matrix of the case and interfere with the concurrent decrees passed by the courts below. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. This Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed, in limine. Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj