IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 RSA.No. 1226 of 2006 AS.2/2004 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA OS.108/2002 of MUNSIFF .COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS-DEFENDANTS. -------------------------------------------------- 1. N.S.GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, JYOTHIS BHAVAN, EZHALLOOR KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, (PRESIDENT, SREEDHARMA SASTHA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI,EZHALLOOR). 2. U.V.SHAJI, S/O.VASUDEVAN, URULAL HOSUE, EZHALLOOR P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6- PLAINTIFF 2 TO 6. -------------------------------------------------- 1. VANAJAKUMARI,W/O.LATE SALIMKUMAR, NEERNAL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 2. VIJAYAN K.NAIR, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, NEERNAL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 3. SUJATHA RAJU, W/O. RAJU, THANDEL HOUSE, EAST KALOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. JAYA MADHU, W/O. MADHU, KURUR HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 5. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.LATE KESAVAN NAIR, NEERANAL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================================ R.S.A. NO. 1226 OF 2006 ================================== Dated this the 19th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.108/2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha are appellants. Respondents are plaintiffs. Respondents instituted the suit for injunction claiming that they are in possession of the property and apellantns have no manner of right or possession and they are attempting to trespass into the property and they are to be restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction. Appellants in their written statement contended that Plaint A & B schedule properties form part of the temple property having a total extent of 77.60 hectares in R.S.No.370/0 and boundaries of the property are not correctly described and appellants have no manner of right, title or possession to the property and therefore, suit is to be dismissed. 2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pws.1 to 6, Dws.1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 and C1 & C1(a) found that respondents established the possession of the property and R.S.A.NO. 1226/2006 -2- appellants have no right to trespass the property and granted a decree restraining appellants from trespassing into plaint A & B schedule property. Appellants challenged that judgment before District Court,Thodupuzha in A.S.No.2/2004. Learned Additional District Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for appellants is that respondents have no title to the property and subsequently respondents instituted the suit claiming title to the property against the Government and that suit was dismissed holding that plaintiffs have no right in the property and therefore possession of the property by respondents is unauthorised and appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed and therefore respondents are not entitled to the decree sought for. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 4. Being a suit for injunction only question is with regard to the possession of the plaint schedule property. Trial court and first Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence found that R.S.A.NO. 1226/2006 -3- respondents are in possession of the property. That finding of fact cannot be interfered in exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. First Appellate Court specifically provided that worshippers including appellants have a right to enter the temple compound. As the question of title is not to be decided in the present appeal and even if there is a decree against the respondents in the suit filed by them, this decree will not prevent Government from taking possession of the property from the respondents, if the decree in that suit provides . Appeal is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ks. R.S.A.NO. 1226/2006 -4-