IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 SA.No. 876 of 1997() ----------------------------- AS.219/1994 of SUB COURT, PALA OS.281/1981 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF ------------------------- BABU, SON OF RAGHAVAN, PULINILKUMTHADATHIL KURAVILANGADU, KURAVILANGADU VILLAGE, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JOHNSER SON OF RAGHAVAN, PULINILKUMTHADATHIL, KURAVILANGAD. BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT- DEFENDANT ------------------------- KERALA STATE, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.2240/1997 IN SA. NO.876/1997 DISMISSED 05/08/2009 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = SA.No.876 of 1997. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009. J U D G M EN T Suitor in OS.No.281 of 1981 on the file of the Munsiff, Pala is the appellant. Respondent State instituted revenue recovery proceedings as against the plaint schedule properties for realisation of the abkari arrears due to the respondent from the father of the appellant as if the property belongs to the father of the appellant. Claiming absolute right over the plaint schedule properties by virtue of Exts.A1 sale deed, the appellant sought for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the revenue decree proceedings. 2. Inter alia, the respondent disputed the possession and title claimed by the appellant. 3. After raising the issues the parties were sent for trial. The lower court on appraisal of evidence of Pws.1 to 4, Dw1, Exts.A1 to A5, B1, B2, C1 and C2, by judgment and decree dated 25.11.1986 dismissed the suit. Against that an appeal as AS.No.128 of 1987 was preferred before the District Court, Kottayam. That appeal was allowed by judgment and decree SA.No.876 of 1997. -: 2 :- dated 9.1.1991 and the case was remanded to the trial court. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 21.2.1997 again found against appellant. As against that judgment and decree an appeal as AS.No.219 of 1994 was preferred. By judgment and decree dated 21.2.1997 the Subordinate Judge, Pala dismissed the appeal. Now this second appeal. 4. The following are the questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum: A. When there is conflict in the description of the property between survey number, extent and boundaries, whether the description of the property by boundaries will not prevail over other descriptions since it is description by boundaries which is least liable to error. B. When the description by boundaries along with extent also clear from the description in the title deeds, whether omission of the survey number in the title deeds is sufficient to non suit the party regarding his title to the property. C. When the plaint for a decree of permanent injunction is amended as to incorporate a case of title also, whether the court below was legally correct in not deciding the question of title on the ground that the question of title was not specifically referred to in the relief portion of the plaint. 5. Today, when the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that availing the amnesty scheme declared by the respondent, the appellant had already approached the SA.No.876 of 1997. -: 3 :- authorities for deduction of interest and to remit the arrears and in that event there is no necessity for selling the plaint schedule properties and that the appellant would not apprehend revenue recovery proceedings against the plaint schedule properties and as such no adjudication regarding the right, title and possession claimed by the appellant is warranted in this appeal. In the above circumstance, recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The appellant is at liberty to approach the respondent for lifting the attachment, if any, on remitting such dues, if any and if so advised. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/- SA.No.876 of 1997. -: 4 :- P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ================== SA.No.876 of 1997. ================== JUDGMENT 5th August, 2009.