IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 1154 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.14/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI OS.167/1995 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PERINTHALMANNA .................... APPELLANT/2ND APPELLANT/2ND PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------------------- KAREKKATTU CHAMI, S/O.KALI, RESIDING AT THAZHEKODE AMSOM, PERINTALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/1ST APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS 3 TO 9 LRS. OF D2/1ST PLAINTIFF: --------------- 1. CHINNA, D/O.PANKU. 2. KRISHNAN, S/O.PANKU. 3. RADHA, D/O.PANKU. 4. VISWANATHAN, S/O.PANKU. 5. SURESH BABU, S/O.PANKU. 6. VASANTHI, D/O.LATE PANKU. 7. JANAKI, W/O.LATE PANKU. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT ELAMKULAM AMSOM, MUTHUKURUSSI DESOM, PERINTALMANNA TALUK-678 593. 8. PONNUTTAN, S/O.NARAYANI. 9. BALAN, S/O.NARAYANI. 10. BHARGGAVI, D/O.NARAYANI. R.S.A.NO.1154/2010 11. SANTHA, D/O.PARVATHI. 12. VANAJA, D/O.PARVATHI RESPONDENTS 8 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT PRATHANKUZHI HOUSE, VELLINEZHI AMSOM OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 101. RESPONDENTS 8 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT PRATHANKUZHI HOUSE, VELLINEZHI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 13. MUHAMMED, S/O.THATTANTHODI ALI, RESIDING AT PONNIAKURUSSI DESOM, PEIRNTHALMANNA - 679 322. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.1154 OF 2010 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed against the concurrent decision rendered by two courts below in a suit for injunction. Plaintiff is the appellant. Limited relief canvassed in the appeal at the time of considering its admissibility by the learned counsel is for removal of some observations made by both the courts over the title of the suit property claimed by the appellant under Ext.A1 deed while considering the merit of his claim for injunction. Since the relief in the suit required to be decided on the question of possession alone, but not on title, such observations made by the two courts, it is submitted, would cause serious prejudice to the appellant and affect his valuable rights over the suit property, is the submission of the counsel. It is urged that a clarification may be issued by this Court that the dismissal of his suit will, in no way, affect whatever rights the plaintiff can set up on the basis of his title over the property. Reliance is placed on Ramji Rai and Another v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) through L.Rs. and Another (AIR 2007 SC 900) to contend that in a R.S.A.NO.1154/2010 2 suit for injunction where the plaintiff failed to prove his possession, the dismissal should be on that ground and the observation made that he is not the owner of the property, is uncalled for. Perusing the judgment rendered by the courts below and particularly noticing that possession was claimed on the basis of title alleged to have been obtained by the plaintiff by virtue of an assignment of a lease from the tenant in occupation under Ext.A1 deed, I find that without notice to the respondents and hearing them, it may be inappropriate for this Court to clarify the observations made by the courts below with regard to the views expressed on the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. However, it has to be stated that since the suit being one for injunction, as the question of title of the plaintiff was not adjudicated upon, whatever observations made by the court on the question of title may not be decisive. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.S.A.NO.1154/2010 3