IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 RSA.No. 483 of 2010() -------------------------------- AS.18/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.888/2003 of III ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------ DAISY, D/O.LAL VAREED, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOOSY BHAVAN, THACHOTTUKAVU, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN, SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SRI.R.S.MADHU, SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------- SICILY, W/O.LAL VAREED, RESIDING AT T.C.16/1729, ULLOOR LANE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.483 of 2010-G ------------------------------------- Dated 15th June 2010 Judgment Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against her, the plaintiff in OS No.888/03 has come up in appeal. 2. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction and for other reliefs. It is sad to note that the daughter has filed the suit against her aged mother. 3. The claim is based on Ext.A1 will, which is found to be a joint will executed jointly by the defendant and her late husband, by which the property belonging to them including the plaint schedule property were bequeathed to their children. As per the will, the legacy will take effect only on the death of both the testators, but the surviving testator will have life interest over the properties. It was in this context that the suit was laid by the daughter. RSA 483/10 2 4. Both the courts evaluated the evidence before them and found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any equitable relief of injunction in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff pointed out that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in stating that it was the daughter, who had dragged the aged mother into the court. It is also contended that the courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the legacy comes into operation on the death of both the testators. 5. There is no merit in the above contentions at all. Both the courts below have considered the evidence in detail and have come to the conclusion that the defendant, who is none other than the mother of the plaintiff has life interest in the property and also the right to take usufructs from the property. The apprehension of the plaintiff that her 90 year old mother will try to cut and remove the trees standing in the property, is without any basis whatsoever. 6. It is not in dispute that Ext.A1 is a joint will. It is also not in dispute that the survivor is entitled to reside in RSA 483/10 3 the property and take usufructs from the property till lifetime. The courts below were fully justified in declining to grant the equitable relief of injunction to the plaintiff. It is also found by the courts below that the apprehensions of the plaintiff are unfounded. It is interesting to note that there was a suit filed by the mother against the daughter and the mother was able to get a decree in her favour. Both the courts below have considered the matter in considerable detail and have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs. No grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the courts below. This Second Appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 483/10 4 RSA 483/10 5