IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 AS.No. 899 of 1997() ----------------------------- OS.39/1997 of DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- MARIKKILAM ABOOBACKER, S/O.THIRINIKKAD MOHAMMED KAVARATTI. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. KUNCHELLIYAM ALIKOYA S/O.BASHA SAHIB, KAVARATTI. 2. KUNCHELLIYAM MOHAMMED KOYA S/O. BASHA SAHIB, KAVARATTI. 3. KUNCHELLIYAM NALLAKOYA GOVT. MECHANIC, S/O.BASHA SAHIB, KAVARATTI. 4. KUNCHELLIYAM ASSIYOMABI, W/O. KONAKKAD MOHAMMED. 5. KUNCHELLIYAM NAFEESABIVI,D/O. ASIYOMMABI. 6. KUNCHELLIYAM MUTHKOYA,S/O. ASIYAMMABI. 7. KUNCHELLIYAM SYED ABDULLAKOYA, DY.SURVEYER, S/O.BASHA SAHIB,KAVARATTI. 8. KUNCHELLIYAM MULLAKOYA, S/O. BASHA SAHIB, KAVARATTI. ADV. SRI.M.V.IBRAHIMKUTTY SRI.A.K.SAYED MUHAMMED THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S. No. 899 of 1997 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, The plaintiff in a suit for declaration is the appellant. He claimed that he is the son of Thrinikad Mohammed, who along with his siblings Thrinikad Aboobacker, Saina, Aysha were Kudians of Palakappad Tarwad, and were in possession of the plaint schedule properties and had made improvements thereon. He alleged that the predecessors of those persons were also in possession and were acting as Kudians. The plaintiff stands to assert that his father demanded execution of an agreement separating the Kudians' rights and Jenmis' rights. However, it was not done and subsequently Palakappad Tarwad became extinct. With all these pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of his father and his siblings as Kudians of Palakappad Tarwad, and therefore he continues in possession on the strength of such prior possession of his father. A.S.899/1997. 2 2. The defendants contested the suit relying on Exts.B1 to B3. The court below found that there were no oral or documentary evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim for possession. The court below was not prepared to act solely on the testimony of the plaintiff as P.W.1. Obviously, that was an interested version. In contra, the court below considered Ext.B1 relied on by the defendants. We do not find any legal or factual infirmities to disturb the finding of the court below that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession as alleged by him. Accordingly, the suit for declaration of his possession has necessarily to fail. For the aforesaid reasons, we confirm the decree of the trial court and dismiss this appeal. No costs. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.