IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 RSA.NO. 461 OF 2009() --------------------- AS.123/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA OS.144/2000 OF MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM .................... APPELLANTS – APPELLANTS - DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MEENCUT, CHITHIRAPURAM, PALLIVASAL, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------ TATA TEA LIMITED, A PUBLIC LTD. COMPANY, REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,1956,HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT 1-BISHOP LEFROY ROAD, CALCUTTA WITH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, AT MUNNAR, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, REP.BY P/A.HOLDER AND DY.GENERAL MANAGER INDUSTRIAL RELATION, TATA TEA LTD.,REGIONA ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R1 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A. NO.461 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Admit. 2. The following substantial question of law is framed for a decision. Is the suit maintainable in view of Section 14 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court? 3. Respondent appears through Advocate Joseph Kodianthara. 4. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction against the appellant and won in the courts below. Hence the Second Appeal at the instance of defendant raising the above substantial question of law. 5. It is submitted by counsel for respondent that subsequent to the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the suit property has been acquired by the State Government for and on behalf of the appellant, possession of the property has been handed over to R.S.A. NO.461 of 2009 -: 2 :- the appellant and hence the suit has become infructuous. 6. The Senior Manager of respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect that the suit property has been acquired by the State Government and possession has been handed over to the appellant. In the above circumstances suit has become infructuous. What is required is only to set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and dismiss the suit as infructuous. Resultantly, appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside and suit is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv R.S.A. NO.461 of 2009 -: 3 :- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== R.S.A. NO.461 of 2009 =================== J U D G M E N T 2ND NOVEMBER, 2009