IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 SA.No. 951 of 1996(E) ------------------------------- AS.22/1994 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR OS.301/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------- CHALIYAN VALAPPIL KORAN, S/O.KORAN, MADAYI PANCHAYAT, WARD NO.II, HOUSE NO.142, MADAYI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, CANNANORE DT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. CHALIYAN VALAPPIL KRISHNAN, S/O.MATHAYI, AGED 52 YEARS, HEAD CLERK, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MADAYI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, CANNANORE DT. 2. CHALIYAM VALAPPIL SARASWATHI, D/O.MATHAYI, AGED 49 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, MADAYI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, CANNANORE DT. 3. CHALIYAN VALAPPIL YESODA, D/O.MATHAYI, AGED 26 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT MADAYI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, CANNANORE DT. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 951 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT O.S. No.301 of 1990 before the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, a suit for injunction was decreed against the defendant. The defendant carried the matter in appeal as A.S.22 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Payyannur. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence the Second Appeal. 2. According to the plaintiff, he obtained the plaint schedule property as per a gift deed executed by his mother. Ever since then he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant, who had no right over the suit property, on an earlier occasion had removed soil from the property and that forced the plaintiff to institute O.S. 105 of 1979 seeking damages. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. In turn the defendants instituted O.S.175 of 1982 for S.A. 951/1996. 2 declaration of his right and for consequential reliefs. That suit was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed in appeal. Then the defendants approached the Land Tribunal seeking assignment. That was also found against the defendants. Appeal filed by them had the same fate. Apprehending trespass by the defendants, the suit was laid. 3. The defendants resisted the suit pointing out that the plaintiff had no right or possession over the suit property. The further contention of the defendants was that the documents produced in support of the claim were all concocted. They claimed independent right over the suit property. 4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and Exts.A1 to A19 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined D.W. 1 and marked Exts.B1 to B3(c). Ext.C1 is the commission report and Ext.C2 is the plan. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case the court below came to the conclusion that the defendants had no manner S.A. 951/1996. 3 of right whatsoever over the suit property and the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff was justified. It was found that the property belonged to the plaintiff and he is in possession of the same. Accordingly the suit was decreed. In appeal the same was confirmed. 5. Even though learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the finding of the court below are not justified, he was unable to substantiate his claim in the light of the evidence available on record. The fact that the suit filed by the defendants claiming right over the suit property was found against both by the trial court as well as the appellate court. The defendants had also approached the Land Tribunal for assignment of right over the suit property and the same was dismissed, which was confirmed in appeal also. Thereafter it comes with little grace from the defendants to say that they have rights over the suit property. The courts below have considered the evidence in great detail and have come to the conclusion that the defendants were trying to trespass into the property and the S.A. 951/1996. 4 apprehension expressed by the plaintiff is justified. It was based on the appreciation of the evidence the trial court decreed the suit. It is significant to note that the appellate court independently considered the evidence on record and came to the same conclusion. 5. The findings of the courts below are based on evidence and facts disclosed from the record. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. It is not shown that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or not justified. Under such circumstances no interference is called for with the findings of the courts below. Accordingly this Second Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. S.A. 951/1996. 5 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 951 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 19.05.2010