IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 SA.No. 523 of 1996() -------------------- AS.22/1988 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA OS.153/1981 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ----------------- NARAYANAN RAVEENDRAN, VELIYAPARAMBU VEETTIL, PUNNAPRA MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SMT.A.C.VIDHYA RESPONDENT/RESPONENT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------- LEELAMMA JACOB, RESIDING AT MAMPALLIL, KOMANA MURI, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE FROM MAMPALLIL BRAHMAMANGALAM KARA, CHEMPU VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------ S.A.NO.523 OF 1996 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.153/1981 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alleppey is the appellant. The suit was filed for fixation of boundaries and consequential injunction. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal. Hence the appeal. The parties hereinafter referred to are the plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. The suit property is an extent of 26 cents, which is a part of a larger extent of 36 cents. The entire property originally belonged to one Lakshmikutty Amma. Excluding an extent of 10 cents in the north-eastern portion an extent of 26 cents was purchased by the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 30/1/1981. The defendant is in possession of north-eastern portion of 10 cents of property which forms part of the larger -2- S.A.523/1996 extent of 36 cents. According to the plaintiff, the defendant destroyed the fencing separating the property of the plaintiff and defendant, who is interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the property. The defendant resisted the suit, denied the title of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. The trial court examined and adjudicated the question as to whether the plaintiff was the title holder and was in possession of the suit property. The defendant is claiming right over the property under Ext.B1 agreement for sale dated 9/9/1980. The trial court also examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The trial court after discussing the evidence tendered by Dws.1 to 4 and Ext.B1 and the evidence tendered by the plaintiff, held that Ext.B1 is not a genuine document. The trial court also held that Ext.B1 agreement itself will not create any interest in favour of the defendant over the subject matter involved and that if, as a matter of fact, pursuant to Ext.B1, possession was surrendered to the -3- S.A.523/1996 defendant as alleged, in all probability, it would have been referred to in Ext.B1. 4. The Lower Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that the trial court after analysing the evidence of Dws.2 to 4 and attendant circumstances, entered a finding that Ext.B1 is not a genuine document, and as such no valid reason is found to upset the findings of the trial court. The Lower Appellate Court also examined the rights set up by the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is the title holder and is in possession of the suit property. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the trial court or the Appellate Court. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.