IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 815 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.1069/2007 Dated 23/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 1& 2 -------------------------------- 1. NAGAMANGALATHILLATH SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOODIRI,S/O.LATE SAMBU NAMBOODIRI, AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER, KANKOLE AMSOM, KUNDAYAM KOVVAL DESOM,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. NAGAMANGALTHILLATH SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI S/O.LATE SAMBU NAMBOODIRI, KANKOLE AMSOM, KUNDAYAM KOWAL DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. PORKALATHILLATH VASUDEVAN S/O.LATE EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI, NO JOB, KANKOLE AMSOM, KUNDAYAM KOWAL DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PROKALATHILLATH PADAMANABHAN S/O.LATE EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI, KANKOLE AMSOM, KUNDAYAM KOWAL DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. PROKALATHILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.LATE EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI, KANKOLE AMSOM, KUNDARAYAM KOWAL DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. NAGAMANGALATHILLATH SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI,S/O.LATE SAMBU NAMBOODIRI, KANKOLE AMSOM KUNDAYAM KOWAL DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. -2- R.P.NO.815/09 Suppl. 5. PROKALATHILLATH SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM D/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, KANKOL AMSOM, & DESOM,KANNUR DISTRICT. '' 6. DAUGHTER PORKULATHILLATH SANDHYA KANKOL AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. '' 7. BROTHER PORKULATHILLATH EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI,KANKOL AMSOM & DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. '' 8. BROTHER PORKULATHILLATH DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI,(MINOR), KANKOL AMSOM & DESOM,KANNUR DISTRICT REP. BY BROTHER 7TH RESPONDENT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. -------------------------- R.P.NO.815 OF 2009 IN R.S.A.NO.1069 OF 2007 -------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 O R D E R Review petitioners are the appellants in R.S.A.No.1069/2007. This court in the judgment sought to be reviewed considered the contentions of the appellants and held that the conclusions arrived at by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court solely rest on facts. This Court held that there are no grounds made out by the appellants to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that Ext.A1 document was not properly construed or appreciated by the fact finding courts. According to the learned counsel, the suit was filed pointing out that 32 cents of property described as B schedule form part of plaint A schedule property. The counsel submitted that the fact finding court did not appreciate the -2- R.P.No.815/09 evidence on record properly and wrongly held that no property is held by the plaintiffs the south of the pathway, which is a part of 1.04 acres. The courts below elaborately considered the contentions of the appellants. The trial court, after examining the documents and oral testimonies of the contesting parties, held that the plaintiffs are having only 66 cents in RS.No.66/1 whereas by virtue of Exts.B1 and B2 the defendants are holding more extent than 1 acre 75cents. The court below also taken note of the admissions made by PW1. PW1 testified before the court below that the present defendants are having property on the southern side of his 66 cents. The trial court and the Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence on record, concluded that the plaintiffs are having ownership and possession of 66 cents of land in R.S.No.99/1. The trial court further held that the pathway is the demarcating southern boundary of the plaintiffs' property and that the extent of which has been established as 66 cents vide Exts.B3 to B5. The trial court also on -3- R.P.No.815/09 evidence recorded the fact that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the B schedule property and therefore not entitled to the relief of injunction. I have reiterated the findings of the trial court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court and held that the findings entered by the courts below are based on facts, circumstances and evidence. That is the reason, this Court preferred to dismiss the appeal in limine, after holding that there is no scope for interference by invoking Section 100 of the C.P.C. For the very same reasons, the review petition lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.