IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 117 of 2008() --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.104 OF 2007 DATED 24/11/2007 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR) REVISION PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------- V.V.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, AGED 77 YEARS, ADVOCATE, PRESIDENT, KERALA ASSOCIATION FOR NON FORMAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT, (KANFED), DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 117 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 8thday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of the Munsiff, Kannur, in OS 104/07. It is a case for recovery of possession filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In order to succeed in such a case it has to be proved that the revision petitioner/plaintiff is in possession within six months before the date of institution of the suit and that he has been dispossessed and is therefore entitled to possession. 2. Here the plaintiff is styling himself as to be president of the Kerala Association for Non-Formal Education and Development. The respondent is the Kanoor Municipality. It is the contention of the Kanoor Municipality that it was only as per a letter of the District Collector some accommodation was given on 30.4.85. 3. The court below non suited the plaintiff on two grounds. (i) There is nothing to show that he is the president of the said Association. (ii) He has not succeeded in proving that the said Association was in possession, within a period of six months prior to C.R.P. NO.117/08 2 the institution of the suit. The court also had referred to the Commissioner’s report in the matter. It is true that the key of the table therein was in the possession of the present plaintiff. The documents available related to a prior period of 1990-95 and no fresh document was available to prove the continuance of possession. Therefore, the court found that in the absence of evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff or the Association was in possession, within a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. Being a crucial point, that will decide the fate under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the court was not inclined to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff. I do not find any ground to hold that the finding of the court below is incorrect. Therefore, the civil revision petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. But, at the same time I make it clear that if there is any other legal right for the revision petitioner, this will not stand in the way of pursing the same. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.117/08 3