IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 SA.No. 69 of 1997() ------------------- AS.54/1988 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.185/1985 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------- P.K.ASOKAN, RESIDING AT PALOOR VEEDU, ARCHAL MURY, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. KUNJUKUNJU SUDARSANAN, RESIDING AT NELLIMUTTATHU VEEDU, MANALIPACHA, NEDIYARA MURI, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. OMANA, RESIDING AT PUTHUVEIL PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, KOCHUPLAMOODU, KIZHAKKE KALLADA MURI AND VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 3. OMANA SUPRABHA (MINOR) RESIDES AT -DO- -DO- 4. OMANA SUGANTHI (MINOR) RESIDES AT -DO- -DO- (MINOR RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN R2.) ADV. MR.C.V.VASUDEVAN FOR R1 TO R4 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SA.No. 69 of 1997 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.161/97 IN S.A.NO.69/1997 DISMISSED. 30.7.2010 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ S.A.No.69 Of 1997 ---------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The defendant in O.S.No.185 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.54 of 1988 of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Suit was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody under him from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or taking forcible possession thereof or obstructing the plaintiffs in their possession or committing any acts of waste therein or taking any yield therefrom or cutting and removing any trees therefrom or committing any act of disturbance to the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and the same was confirmed in appeal. Parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court appreciated and considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and S.A.No.69 Of 1997 ::2:: DW1 was discussed. The documentary evidence adduced by the parties, namely, Exts.A1 to A5, Exts.B1 & B2 were also considered on merits. 3. Plaintiffs claimed title and possession over the plaint schedule property on the strength of patta issued in the name of the father of the first plaintiff in L.A.C.92/72/ER. The defendant denied the averments in the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the plaint schedule property. According to him he obtained patta No.559/85 in respect of the plaint schedule property and eversince the issuance of the patta he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Ext.A1 is the patta No.L.A.C.No.99/72. Exts.A2 to A5 are the tax receipts in respect of the plaint schedule property. After referring to Exts.A1 to A5 the trial court held that tax was paid by the father of the plaintiffs. The trial court also appreciated the evidence tendered by the defendant and the documents produced in support of his case. PW1 testified before the court in terms of the plaint. He deposed that the plaint schedule property was obtained by his father as per Ext.A1 patta and Exts.A2 to A5 are the tax receipts in respect of the plaint schedule property. He S.A.No.69 Of 1997 ::3:: also testified that he is residing in the plaint schedule property and that Ext.B1 patta was issued in the name of the defendant illegally and therefore he complained to the authorities and sought for cancellation of Ext.B1 patta. Court below found that Exts.A1 and B1 are two pattas issued in respect of the very same property, that Ext.A1 is the first patta issued in respect of the plaint schedule property, that the issuance of patta in favour of the plaintiffs has been admitted in the written statement and the defendant claims to have purchased the property belonging to the plaintiffs' father for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and according to him the possession of the property is with the defendant. Ext.A1 is the first document and Ext.B1 is the latter document. As I said earlier, the defendant admitted the issuance of patta in the name of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs complained that the defendant has obtained Ext.B1 patta by exerting influence on the Government officials. The fact finding courts accepted Ext.A1 patta as validly issued in favour of the plaintiffs predecessor and further held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule properties as legal heirs of deceased Kunjukunju, who obtained possession of the property S.A.No.69 Of 1997 ::4:: as per Ext.A1 patta. 4. The decree and judgment passed by the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court on facts. The lower appellate court after considering the contentions of the parties and after appreciating the evidence agreed with the findings entered by the trial court. The lower appellate court also on facts held that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property and therefore the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same was dismissed. The findings entered by the trial court confirmed by the lower appellate court are based on facts, evidence and circumstances. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule property. No valid grounds are made out by the appellant to interfere with the findings of facts entered by the courts below. No question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-