IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2008 / 16TH POUSHA 1929 RSA.No. 1185 of 2008(G) ---------------------- AS.104/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THALASSERY OS.52/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF's COURT, KANNUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: K.K.RUGMINI AMMA,, W/O.V.C.JANARAHANAN (LATE), AGED 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KRISHNAPURAM, KUTTIYATTOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: 1. K.K.ROHINI AMMA , W/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, (LATE),AGED 81 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOODALI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.K.CHANDRASENAN @ CHANDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS, RETIRED TEACHER, S/O.K.T.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, (LATE),KOLARMBIL, KOLOLAM P.O., EDAYANNUR (VIA), KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. K.K.PRABHAVATHI, D/O.K.T.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, (LATE),KOLARMBIL, KOLOLAM P.O., EDAYANNUR VIA. KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. K.K.SREENIVASAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.T.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR (LATE), KOLARMBIL, KOLOLAM, P.O. EDAYANNUR, VIA. KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. K.K.BHARATHAN @ GEETHANANDAN, S/O.K.T.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, (LATE), AGED 54 YEARS, TEACHER, KOODALI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.KOODALI,KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S No. 52 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein namely K.K. Rohini Amma and four of her children was one for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property admeasuring 50 cents. 2. The facts concurrently found by the courts below are as follows:- As per the final decree in O.S No. 50/1954 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery, the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were petitioners 13 to 17 in Ext.A1 final judgment dated 04.01.1966 in the said suit and the plaint schedule property which was plot G in the plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Final Decree Court, was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The defendant who was allotted plot E in the said final decree, R.S.A. No. 1185/2008 : 2 : attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit. The appellant contended that the suit property was not set apart to the plaintiffs as alleged and that the plaintiffs did not obtain delivery of the property set apart to their share. Both the courts have concurrently held that the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs as plot G in the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in the final decree proceedings in O.S. No. 50/1954 and that the appellant/defendant was allotted plot E. With regard to the contention of the appellant that the plaintiff did not take delivery of plot G, both the courts have accepted the plaintiffs' contention that since they were already in possession of the said plot, there was no necessity for taking delivery through the court. Thus, the concurrent finding is to the effect that the plaintiffs are in possession of plot G of Ext.C1 final decree which is the plaint schedule property. The decree for injunction was rightly granted. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise R.S.A. No. 1185/2008 : 3 : for determination in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv