IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 SA.No. 90 of 2002() --------------------------- AS.53/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM OS.53/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/2ND PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------ SARATHCHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THEKKUMUVALLAYIL VEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE & MURI. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS/PLAINTIFF 1 & 3. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.KUNJUNNIPILLAI, CHANDRAMANDIRATHIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE & MURI. 2. PADMAVATHI AMMA, D/O.THANKAMMA, THEKKUMUALLAYIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE & MURI. 3. RAJEEVKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THEKKUMVALLAYIL VEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE & MURI. 4. THANKAMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, THEKKUMVALLAYIL VEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE & MURI. 5. AJITHKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THEKKUMVALLAYIL VEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE & MURI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF, SMT.K.K.RATNALATHA. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------- S.A.No.90 OF 2002 --------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Second plaintiff, in O.S.No.53/1990 on the file of the Munsiff's court, Vaikom, is the appellant. The appellant along with two others (plaintiffs 1 and 3) instituted the suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, claiming absolute title and possession over the plaint schedule property and alleging trespass by the defendants. 2. The defendants denied the right and title claimed by the plaintiffs. 3. After raising the issues, the parties were sent for trial. On appraisal of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and Ext.A1 on the side of the plaintiffs and the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the defendants; and going by Exts.C1(a), C2 and C2(a), the trial court arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs had not succeeded to establish the identity of the property and their title over the same. Consequently, the suit S.A.No.90/2002 2 was dismissed. Assailing the decree and judgment dismissing the suit, the 2nd plaintiff preferred A.S.No.53/96. The Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam, to whom the appeal was made over, by the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2001, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the appellate judgment and decree, the Second Appeal was preferred. Following are the questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum. “A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the finding of the courts below that the plaintiff failed to establish that the eastern boundary of the property of the plaintiff is a 'varamba' is not against the evidence adduced in the case. B) Whether the evidence adduced in the case in any way establish that the eastern boundary of the plaintiff property is a 'thoudu'. C) Whether the finding of the courts below that the evidence in the case only probablise the defence version is not a baseless and unsustainable finding.” 4. A careful reading of the questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum itself would show that the appellant is S.A.No.90/2002 3 assailing the concurrent finding on facts regarding the identity and title of the appellant over the plaint schedule property. In fact, no question of law is involved. 5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any question of law involved in this case. The findings of the courts below against the appellant regarding the title and possession of the plaint schedule property is purely a finding on facts based on the evidence. Sitting in Second Appeal, this Court is not expected to have a reappraisal of the evidence and to disturb the concurrent findings on facts regarding title and possession. The Second Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps