IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 AS.No. 931 of 1998() ------------------------------ OS.25/1997 of DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 ------------------------ 1. AMINA MANIKKA, W/O. LATE DHIVIHINDUVAN HASSAN, MANIKFAN, MINICOY. 2. A.B.HUSSAIN MANIKFAN, S/O. LATE DIVIHINDUVAN HASSAN MANIKFAN, MINICOY. 3. KADHEEJA MANIKKA, D/O. LATE DIVITHINDUVAN HASSAN MANIKFAN, MINICOY. BY SRI. S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMED ALI SRI.MAT.PAI SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR & SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ----------------------- ATHIRIKOLUGE UTHARU FARATHUGE FATHIMA, MINICOY, LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.USUPH SRI.P.U.ZIYAD THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 ............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Lakshadweep in O.S.No.25/1997. The suit is one for permanent injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of a measured portion and an area situated on the western side of it. The plaintiff would contend that the property having the measurements is in her possession and she had approached the authorities and by virtue of an agreement between the parties as per Ext.A3 order, it is made clear that the said property is having the following measurements. In Sy.No.10/3 B, having north measurement of 107 links, south measurement of 117 links, east measurement of 104 links and west measurement of 70 links. A patta is to be issued in the name of the plaintiff. The other document supports her case i.e., Ext.A2 which is Ext.B1 as well where both the parties have agreed and the defendants' predecessor had also agreed to give the : 2 : A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 land to the first defendant. Therefore Ext.A3 coupled with Ext.A2 statement concludes the question regarding possession with respect to the plaintiff over the property whose measurements are given above. The defendants in their written statement would contend that the plaintiff's father was appointed as a watchman and he was permitted to construct a temporary shed of 35 x 25 feet. It is further contended that with the permission of the Collector, such a permission was granted and that a karar was executed by the plaintiff's father on 15.5.1970 to vacate the land without any objection. With respect to the property on the western side which is described in the plaint, there was a suit, O.S.No.11/1992 against the father of the present plaintiff and there was an ex parte decree and an appeal was filed by the father of the plaintiff before the High Court of Kerala as C.M.A.No.187/1994. The said C.M.A was disposed of on the contention that the father did not have any right over the property and that the property belongs to the daughter namely the plaintiff herein and also that the present suit was pending before the court. It is further contended that : 3 : A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 after the disposal of the suit, the said appeal is said to be filed before the High Court. So the decree in O.S.No.11/1992 so far as it relates to the father of the plaintiff was concerned was attempted to be warded off by the father contending that the said property also belongs to the daughter. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge has compartmentalized the case into one with respect to the land which is covered by Ext.A3 and the other with respect to the land situated on the western side of the measured land. So far as it is related to Ext.A3, by virtue of the document available as well as by the admission of the parties therein, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving her possession over the property mentioned in the plaint with the measurements. 3. I feel the contention of the defendants that only a smaller area 35x25 feet has been given and that there was an agreement to vacate the land as and when required all seems to be not acceptable in the light of the statement given which resulted in Ext.A3 order. Therefore the finding of the learned District Judge on that does not call for any : 4 : A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 interference. 4. So far as the property situated on the western side is concerned, the learned District Judge has not granted any relief to any of the parties. The learned Judge had dealt with in para-18 of the judgment. The learned Judge concluded that since there is no proper description and measurement of the seashore land, the plaintiff will not be entitled to an injunction with regard to that portion. The court only granted an order in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the land measuring 107 links north, 117 links south, 104 links east and 70 links west. Unfortunately in the operative portion of the judgment in para-20 it is not specifically written. But a reading of the judgment conclusively shows that injunction is granted with respect to the property having the measurement shown and there is denial of injunction with respect to the property on the western side. Therefore the appeal is disposed of by clarifying that the decree for injunction is related to the property having measurement of 107 links on the north, 117 on the south, : 5 : A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 104 links on the east and 70 links on the west. It is made clear that there is no decree of injunction with respect to the property situated on the western side of these measurements. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 6 : A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.931 OF 1998 ............................................. 2nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T