IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 321 of 1997 -------------------- AS.2/1993 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG OS.89/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- THONATHU VALAPPIL KARTHAKUNHI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PARAMMAL POKKAN, RESIDING AT NELANKARA IN KANHANGAD VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK POST KANHANGAD SOUTH. BY ADV. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. JANAKI, RESIDING AT NELANKARA IN KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, POST KANHANGAD SOUTH. 2. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT NELANKARA IN KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, POST KANHANGAD SOUTH. ADV. MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.B.KRISHNAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ S.A.No.321 Of 1997 ---------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg is the appellant. The suit is filed for injunction simplicitor restraining the defendants from trespassing in to the plaint schedule property and not to prevent the plaintiff from enjoyment of the property peacefully. Trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit. Parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 2. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. 3. It is the plaintiff’s case that the plaint schedule property was allotted to the separate share of the plaintiff as per schedule C vide Ext.A1 partition deed No.2519 of the year 1969. The suit property is a double crop paddy field. 4. The defendants denied the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit. It is the definite case of the defendants that Ext.A1 partition deed referred to in the plaint S.A.No.321 Of 1997 ::2:: does not take in the suit property. The case of the defendants is that they purchased jenm right of 50 cents as per the order in O.A.No.1254/74 from the Land Tribunal. They also contended that the description of the suit property is not correct and the extent of the suit property within the boundary shown in the plaint is 50 cents of land belonging to the defendants. Ext.C1 is the commission report and C2 the plan. The commissioner identified the suit property with the help of village assistant. Ext.A1 is the partition deed referred above. Ext.A2(a) to A2(d) are the revenue receipts produced by the plaintiffs. Ext.A3 is another revenue receipt dated 24th Kumbham 1131. The defendants produced Exts.B1 purchase certificate, B2 series assessment receipts, B3 & B4 certified extract of patta No.1295/74. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court examined and decided the issues on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. After analyzing the evidence on record in the correct perspective, the lower appellate court found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property and therefore not entitled to any reliefs claimed in the plaint. The S.A.No.321 Of 1997 ::3:: lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. I have examined the contentions raised by the appellants and respondents. The findings are recorded on the basis of facts. I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of facts entered by the lower appellate court. The suit is purely a suit for injunction simplicitor. The question of title is not gone into or adjudicated. No question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to file a suit on title before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-