IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 SA.No. 879 of 1998(D) --------------------- AS.120/1996 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE OS.50/1992 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANT(S): (APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.A. HAMSA KOYA, S/O. M.AHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING IN NAGARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN, SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES). RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDANT): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. HAJI M. AHAMMED K OYA, BIG BAZAR, CALICUT BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.A. ISAHAK, S/O. AHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT H.NO.16/31, THANGALS ROAD IN NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.A. SALIH, S/O. AHAMMED KOYA, SOOPIKAVEEDU, NEAR MISCHAL MOSQUE, KUTTICHIRA NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.879 of 1998 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January 2011 Judgment The defendants in OS No.50/92 , who suffered a decree for injunction at the hands of both the courts below, are the appellants before this court. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they are available before the trial court. 2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm, carrying on business in oil, oil-cake and refined oil. The firm is being run in the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The defendants have no manner of right over the properties. They attempted to trespass into the property. Apprehending further trespass, the suit was laid. 3. The defendants resisted the suit by pointing out that the business was, in fact, run by them and the plaintiffs are only trustees on their behalf. The denied the allegation of trespass. They also contended that the wife of the first defendant is a co-tenant of plaint A schedule SA 879/98 2 property and therefore, the first defendant is entitled to enter into the premises. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court raised necessary issues. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants did not adduce any evidence. On a consideration of the materials on record, the trial court found that the defendants have no right either in the business or in the land in which the business is being carried on and so, there was no justification for their interference in the affairs of the firm. The suit was accordingly decreed. 5. The defendants carried the matter in appeal as AS No.120/96 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The lower appellate court, on an independent consideration of the evidence, found that the trial court was perfectly justified in granting the decree and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. SA 879/98 3 6. Notice is seen issued on the following questions of law raised in the second appeal : “A. Whether a suit for injunction is maintainable without any prayer for a declaration of any specific right between two licencees from the same licensor for the same premises ? B. There being no evidence to prove cause of action, can the court pass a decree for injunction ? C. When the plaintiff does not suffer on refusal of injunction and the grant of injunction would put the defendant to hardship and oppression should not the court refuse a decree for injunction ? ” 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have not properly adverted to the issue involved in the suit. It was also submitted that the wife of the first defendant was one of the tenants of plaint A schedule property and therefore, the entry of the first defendant into the property could not have been prevented. 8. Though the above argument may look attractive at the first blush, on a closer scrutiny, it can be found that that it is without any substance whatsoever. Admittedly, the defendants have nothing to do with the SA 879/98 4 business run by the plaintiff. None of them are partners of that firm. The mere fact that the wife of the first defendant is a co-tenant of the premises, does not enable the defendants to interfere with the affairs of the firm. Both the courts below have considered this matter in detail and have come to the conclusion that the defendants have no manner of right over it. Moreover, no evidence was adduced by the defendants to substantiate their claim. 9. In the light of the above facts, the courts below were perfectly justified in reaching a conclusion that the defendants have no right whatsoever to interfere with the affairs of the firm or to enter into the business premises. No grounds are made out warranting interference with the findings of the courts below. No substantial questions of law arise for decision in this second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.Bhavadasan, Judge SA 879/98 5 sta SA 879/98 6