IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 302 of 2003(B) ---------------------- AS.82/2000 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA OS.287/1995 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVICOLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAMODARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT CHEERAMVELIL HOUSE, MUNNAR KARA, K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) ADDL. REV. PETITIONERS IMPLEADED. 2. PADMAVATHI, W/O. LATE DAMODARAN, CHEERAMVELIL HOUSE, MUNNAR KARA, K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 3. C.D. RAMESH, S/O LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO- 4. ANU DAMODARAN, D/O/ LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO- 5. C.D. RAJESH, S/O. LATE DAMODARAN, -DO- -DO- ADDL. REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEAED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED REVISION PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 23.7.2004 IN I.A. NO. 1886/2004. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, THASILDAR, (DELETED) DEVIKULAM TALUK, DEVIKULAM. 3. LONAPPAN.P.A., VILLAGE OFFICER, (DELETED) K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM. 4. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THE NAMES OF 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS STRUCK OFF FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2009 IN I.A. 3354/2009. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. N.K. THANKACHAN. ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR, SC, K.T.D.C. FOR R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 302 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. ORDER Aggrieved by the observations made in paragraph 25 of the appellate judgment, namely, A.S. Nos. 81 and 82 of 2000, the plaintiff before the trial court has come up in revision. 2. The suit was one for injunction. An extent of 20 cents of land in Sy. No. 212/62/9 of KDH Village was the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff on the basis of certain documents in his favour claimed absolute possession over the suit property and when the defendants tried to obstruct his possession over the property, he laid the suit. Initially the suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction and damages. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and granted a decree as prayed for and also awarded Rs.2300/- as damages. The fourth defendant as well as the first defendant carried the matter in appeal. The two appeals, namely, A.S.81 of 2000 C.R.P.302/2003. 2 and 82 of 2000 2000 were disposed of by a common judgment. The appellate court found in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the possession and confirmed the decree in so far as permanent prohibitory injunction was concerned. However, the appellate court set aside that portion of the decree, which granted compensation to the plaintiff. While disposing of the appeal, in paragraph 25 of the judgment it was observed as follows: “Before parting with, I take serious note of certain aspects highlighted by the learned Government Pleader. Firstly, it was pointed out that this is not an assignable land and still some documents giving colour of right was maneuvered with the help of some corrupt officials in the Revenue Department. The learned counsel also pointed out that the officials who issued documents like Ext.A2 etc. were subsequently placed under suspension and departmental actions taken. But there is nothing in evidence to say that Ext.A2 was also the subject matter of such proceedings. Anyhow, it required to be probed as to whether it is an assignable land, why a patta was not later issued and C.R.P.302/2003. 3 whether any foul play is involved in the entire episode. Secondly, as I adverted to earlier, the Ext.C6 suggests that the said Syed Moideen was found an encroacher on that basis, he was ordered to be evicted; later notice was also served on him. Still, it remains as to why he was not evicted.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner points out that the observations made by the appellate court were quite uncalled for since the possession of the plaintiff was found to be legal and that is precisely the reason why the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was granted in his favour. That being the position, it was uncalled for the court to make such observations. Learned counsel also pointed out that if as a matter of fact it is found that the respondents are entitled to recover the property in accordance with law, there is no reason why they should not resort to such steps as are available to them under law. 4. There seems to be some substance in the contention C.R.P.302/2003. 4 raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The observation made regarding the documents etc. in favour of the plaintiff is uncalled for. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that if the defendants in the suit are entitled to recover possession of the property in accordance with law, nothing prohibits them from doing so. It is so. Therefore, the remarks made by the court below are uncalled for and they are expunged. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. C.R.P.302/2003. 5 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 302 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER 04.01.2010