IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 RSA.No. 598 of 2008() --------------------- AS.52/2006 of SUB COURT, PALA OS.291/2003 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. RATNAMMA, W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, THALAVANGATTTU HOUSE, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, THALAVANGATTU HOUSE, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 3. SREEDEVI, D/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, THALAVANAGATTU HOUSE, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- SARALABHAI, D/O.KALYANIAMMA, KAKKADAMPALLIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.C.HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.S.A. NO. 598 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 22-10-2008 JUDGMENT Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 291 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The said suit was one for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule item No. 2 building and also for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from inducting strangers in the said building and committing waste thereon. 2. The case of the plaintiffs can be summarised as follows:- Plaint schedule item No. 1 together with plaint schedule item No. 2 building thereon was obtained by the deceased first plaintiff as per Ext.A1 registered partition deed dated 30-3-1971. The first plaintiff is the brother of one Gopinathan Nair who was the husband of the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Gopinathan Nair and the first defendant. The first plaintiff allowed Gopinathan Nair to reside in plaint schedule item No. 2 building. On the death of Gopinathan Nair, his wife and children who are defendants 1 to 3 continued to reside in the building. The plaintiff was not willing to continue the R.S.A. No. 598 of 2008 -:2:- permission. Hence, the suit. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending inter-alia that the first plaintiff had agreed to sell the plaint item No.1 together with the building to Gopinathan Nair, the deceased husband of the first defendant and believing the same Gopinathan Nair renovated the building expending a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the prayer for recovery of possession is hit by the principles of estoppel, that in case the mandatory injunction was granted, the defendants are entitled to be paid rupees two lakhs which was expended by Gopinathan Nair. 4. The courts below have concurrently found against the aforesaid agreement set up by the defendants and also the further case of the defendants that Gopinathan Nair had spent Rs. 2 lakhs for renovating the building. Since the plaintiff is admittedly the title holder of the property and the defendants were in possession of the building on the strength of the permission granted by the deceased first plaintiff the suit as prayed for was rightly decreed. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions of law formulated at pages 7 and 8 of the memorandum of appeal also do not arise for consideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in R.S.A. No. 598 of 2008 -:3:- limine. The appellants are given six months time to surrender vacant possession of the building provided they file an affidavit before the executing court within two weeks from today undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the building within six months from today and that they shall not induct any strangers in the property. Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.