IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 RSA.No. 1194 of 2008() O.S. NO. 161/1999 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR A.S. NO. 104/2003 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR APPELLANT/APPELLANT/2ND PLAINTIFF: VELLORA KARATTA VEETTIL RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHANI AMMA, VELLORA AMSOM, KARAMEL DESOM, P.O.ANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. VELLORA MADATHILE VEETTIL KUNHI KAMMARA PODUVAL, S/O.SEKHARA PODUVAL, RTD.ENGINEER, PUTHIYANKAVU ROAD, VELLUR AMSOM DESOM. 2. V.M.THAMBAYI AMMA, D/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, VELLUR AMSOM, KARAMEL DESOM. 3. V.M.PADMINI AMMA, D/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, VELLUR AMSOM, KARAMEL DESOM. 4. V.M.GOVINDAN, S/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, KANDANKALI, PAYYANNUR. 5. V.M.DAKSHAYANI AMMA, D/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, MAHADEVAGRAMAM, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, PAYYANNUR. 6. V.M.INDIRA, D/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, VELLUR AMSOM DESOM. 7. V.M.GANGADHARAN, S/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, KOROME AMSOM DESOM. 8. V.M.RADHA, D/O.CHINDA PODUVAL, VELLUR AMSOM DESOM. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== R.S.A. No. 1194 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The surviving 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No. 161 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The said suit was one for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from attempting to put up a fence thereon. The suit was originally filed by the mother of the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, she died and thereafter the appellant who is her son, was impleaded. The suit was filed on the basis of Ext.A1 settlement deed. However, during the stage of evidence, additional documents marked as Exts. A2 to A9 series were introduced in the evidence. The plaintiff wanted the court to look into the additional documents without a plea in that behalf in the plaint. The plaint was also not got amended. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants. 3. As per judgment and decree dated 15.07.2003, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal preferred by the appellant R.S.A. No.1194/2008 : 2 : herein as A.S. No. 104 of 2003, the Sub Court, Payyannur has as per judgment and decree dated 27.05.2008, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The lower appellate court also observed that the documents belatedly produced by the plaintiff could not be looked into in the absence of any pleadings in that behalf and that otherwise the court were to find a new case for the plaintiff. Hence this Second Appeal. 4. The following are the questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal:- i) Were the courts below justified in dismissing the suit by eschewing the documents produced during the trial of the suit and chief affidavit filed in support of the additional documents? ii) In the given facts and circumstances, in a suit for injunction, were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit stating that the plaint schedule property was not identified? Iii) On appreciation of the evidence on record, when the defence set up by the defendants was also based on the documents produced by the plaintiff, simply for non-amendment of the plaint, were the courts below justified in dismissing the suit? 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the contentions of the appellant/plaintiff. R.S.A. No.1194/2008 : 3 : 6. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the submissions which are made contrary to the findings and the pleadings in the case. It is well settled proposition that no amount of evidence can be looked into to find a case which was never pleaded. Even the pleadings were not got amended so as to fit in with the additional evidence belatedly introduced by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal also do not arise for consideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. It is, however, made clear that the observations and findings by the courts below regarding title shall not be taken as binding on the parties since the suit was only one for injunction simplicitor. Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.S.A. No.1194/2008 : 4 :