IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 RSA.No. 145 of 2007() --------------------- AS.66/2002 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD O.S.NO.462 OF 1999 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, KANHANGAD. 4. INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES, KUMBLA. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI L G SURESH BABU RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------- 1. KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA (DIED). 2. SUPPLIMENTAL: ------------- RAGHAVAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. * 3. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 4. JANAKI, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 5. SHARADA, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 6. KARUNAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. #7. LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 8. GOVINDAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 9. RAMAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 10. SAKUNTHALA, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN VELICHAPPADA. 11. NIRMALA, D/o. LATE RAMACHANDRAN HOUSE No.17/74, FISHERIES COLONY KIZHOOR KADAPPURAM, P O CHANDRAGIRI ( * IMPLEADED AS Lhr. OF DECEASED RESPONDENT No.3, AS PER the ORDER DATED 05/08/2009 IN I.A.No.2826/2008.) (# IT IS RECORDED THAT RESPONDENTS 8 TO 10 ARE L.hrs OF DECEASED R7 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2009 VIDE MEMO C.F.6241/2009 DATED 07/10/2009) ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH R2 TO R10 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.145 of 2007A --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Department of Fisheries, Government of Kerala along with its officials have preferred this second appeal challenging judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Kasaragod in A.S.No.66 of 2002 confirming judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Kasaragod in O.S.No.462 of 1999. That was a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the plaint A schedule property. He claimed that the property was purchased by himself and 14 others from Keezhur Fisheries Co-operative Society as per assignment deed no.11/1947 dated 04-01- 1947, a copy of which is Ext.A1. Respondent and others constructed a small shed therein and the Fisheries Department was permitted to construct a small tiled shed to stock salt for distribution among respondent and others. Now the tiled shed has fallen down. Respondent wanted the property to be recovered from the Fisheries Department. Appellants contended that the plaint A schedule belonged to the Fisheries Department as per records and that dispute over the assignment deed relied on by the respondent is not settled so far. They also contended that respondent and others are licensees under the Fisheries Department for allotment of salt (for drying fish). Trial court found that the property was acquired by respondent and others as per Ext.A1 and being one of the co-owners of the plaint A schedule property, respondent is entitled to recover possession of the same. First appellate R.S.A.No.145 of 2007 2 court has concurred with that finding and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellants that the title of respondent is not proved. 2. Respondent has produced Exts.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 as aforesaid is a copy of the assignment deed in favour of respondent and others executed by Kizhoor Fisheries Co-operative Society which acquired the property as per Ext.A10. Respondent has also produced Ext.A9 series, receipts for payment of revenue for the suit property. The Advocate Commissioner who inspected the property has submitted Exts.C1 and C2. There is no case that the plaint A schedule is not covered by Exts.A1 and A10. In fact, appellants have no specific contention how plaint A schedule property is government land. They only stated that as per the records of the Fisheries Department, A schedule property belonged to it. But no such record has been produced in any of the courts below. In the above circumstances the courts below are justified in holding that the plaint A schedule property belonged to the respondent and others. There is no contention raised by appellants against recoverability of the property from them. No substantial question of law is involved to entertain this second appeal. Accordingly the second appeal is dismissed in limine. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/