IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 SA.No. 422 of 1997(A) --------------------- AS.57/1996 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD OS.114/1991 of ADDL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 3 & 4: --------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.MANI, RESIDING AT URLALA, MULLANKOT, BEDEDKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. KARTHYAYANI ALIAS KAIDICHI, W/O.SURENDRA, RESIDING AT CHAVARAKATA IN MUNNADA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.MUNNADA. BY ADV. MR.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BOLAN, S/O.KUKKAN, RESIDING AT URLALA IN BEDEDKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. KARIYA, S/O.MANI, RESIDING AT KANAKUMBRY, KARANDALE IN BEDEDKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. BEDEDKA. ADV. MR.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 MS.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R1 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SA.No. 422 of 1997(A) ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.1085/1997 IN S.A.NO.422/1997 DISMISSED. 8.6.2010 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ S.A.No.422 Of 1997 ---------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The defendants 3 & 4 in O.S.No.114 of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod are the appellants. Suit was filed for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule residential house. It is the plaintiff's case that R.S.No.85 part of Bedadka Village in which the suit house situated was assigned to the plaintiff as per the order of the Land Tribunal in S.M.No.790/73. A.A.346 of 1986 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the revision filed as C.R.P.No.1904 of 1991 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Plaintiff permitted late Mani to occupy the plaint schedule house and Mani permitted the third defendant to occupy the house. Neither the Mani nor the third defendant is entitled to occupy the house. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession. 2. Defendants 1, 3 & 4 filed written statement contending that Mani was a lessee in respect of one acre and that the order in S.M.No.79 of 1973 is a collusive order and that the plaintiff has S.A.No.422 Of 1997 ::2:: no right or title over the house and they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. The trial court as well as the appellate court discussed in detail the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A10 and exhibits Exts.B1 to B4. Relying on the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, trial court held that the plaintiff has got title over the plaint schedule property and is entitled to recover the same. Trial court on facts found that the contentions of the defendant cannot stand in the light of oral and documentary evidence, Ext.A7 order in O.A.No.1401 of 1975 and Ext.A8 judgment passed by the Appellate Authority in A.A.No.346 of 1986. 4. In the appeal preferred by defendants 3 & 4 the lower appellate court also examined the contentions of the appellants. The appellate court found that the findings entered by the trial court are not liable to be interfered with. Lower appellate court also appreciated the facts on evidence and found that the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs prayed for in the suit. I have examined the contentions of the appellants and respondents. I find that the S.A.No.422 Of 1997 ::3:: findings and conclusions of the trial court which was confirmed in appeal are based on facts, evidence and materials adduced by the parties. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding on facts entered by the courts below. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-