IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 RSA.No. 420 of 2010(G) --------------------------------- [AS.NO.292/2003 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM, OS.NO.1454/2000 OF I ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,TRIVANDRUM] .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------- NABEEZA BEEGAM,D/O.AMINA UMMAL, TAJ MANZIL,KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHAHIN MANZIL,UMAYANALLOOR, MAYYANADU VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NABEESA BEEVI,S/O.MALIQ MOHAMMED, OSAK BUILDING,KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OMAR SHERIF,S/O.MALIQ MOHAMMED, OSAK BUILDING,KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MAHARUDEEN,S/O.MALIQ MOHAMMED, OSAK BUILDING,KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.420 of 2010-G ------------------------------------- Dated 28th May 2010 Judgment Undaunted by the concurrent finding against her, the plaintiff has come up in this appeal. 2. The suit is one for injunction simpliciter. She laid claim over the plaint schedule property. The defendants resisted the suit, pointing out that it belongs to them and that the plaintiff has no manner of right over it. 3. The Trial Court raised necessary issues. The evidence consists of the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A9 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined DWs 1 and 2 and had Exts.B1 to B6 marked. Exs.C1 and C1(a) are respectively the Commissioner's report and plan. Third party exhibits were also marked as Exts.X1 to X4. 4. The Trial Court, on an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that a RSA 420/10 2 portion of the plaint schedule property is in the possession of the defendants and accordingly dismissed the suit. ` 5. The matter was carried in appeal. The Appellate Court, on an independent consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the findings of the Trial Court are justified. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Courts below have not addressed the issues in the proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the courts below relied on the statement made by the plaintiff that a portion where the bunk is installed is a place where shop No.TC 20/1076 is situated, which is incorrect. The courts below omitted to notice that immediately thereafter, the plaintiff has clarified the position. 7. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff was unable to properly identify the property, over which she laid her claim. Both the courts have independently considered the evidence on record and RSA 420/10 3 found that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to show that the plaint B schedule property belongs to her. Both the courts have perused the acquisition files and have come to the identical conclusion. The findings are entirely on facts as disclosed by evidence. Therefore, no interference is called for with findings of the courts below. However, it is clarified that this will not preclude the plaintiff from instituting a suit, based on her title to the property or seeking other reliefs available to her in law. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 420/10 4 RSA 420/10 5