IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 SA.No. 921 of 1999(B) ------------------------------- AS.102/1996 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.838/1990 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------ K.N. BHARGAVI, W/O.M.V. BHASKARAN, ROOM NOS.16 & 16 A SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR MARKET, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.T.C.KRISHNA. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC, THRISSUR CORPN., SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs SA.No. 921 of 1999(B) ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2598/1999 IN S.A. NO.921/1999 DISMISSED 23/12/2010. SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------- S.A.No.921 OF 1999 --------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The appellant constructed a lean-to which is scheduled in the plaint in O.S.838/1990 on the file of the Munsiff, Thrissur, for which the appellant had not obtained permission from the respondent. The respondent initiated proceedings for dismantling the plaint schedule structure constructed without permission from the respondent. Thereupon, the appellant preferred the suit seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction. 2. The respondent contended that the pliant schedule leanto was constructed without due permission from the respondent and is liable to be dismantled. 3. Before the trial court, no oral evidence was adduced. The trial court, having found that the plaint schedule structure was constructed without permission and licence, dismissed the suit. The appellate court by the impugned judgment dated 6.10.1999 in A.S.No.102/1996 concurred with the trial court. S.A.No.921/1999 2 Assailing the above judgment and decree this Second Appeal was preferred. Following are the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum. “i) Whether the construction of lean to required the permission of the Municipality? ii) Whether Municipalities Act 1994 governed the issues of the suit. iii) By accepting the licence fee for several years was not the Municipality estopped from proceeding against the appellant, and had acquired to the factum of construction.” 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as perused the judgments of the courts below. It is not now disputed that the construction of leanto requires licence and permit and no permission and licence was obtained. Therefore, I find that the courts below had correctly appraised the evidence and rightly found that the plaint schedule structure was constructed without licence and permit from the respondent. The action initiated by the respondent to dismantle the same is in accordance with law. Though the appellant had formulated S.A.No.921/1999 3 the three points stating to be substantial questions of law, a careful reading of the questions raised in the appeal memorandum itself would show that no question of law is involved. It is on findings on facts, the courts below had non suited the appellant. The appellant is not entitled to retain the structures constructed without licence and permit in accordance with the Municipalities Act and Rules framed thereunder. Regarding the acceptance of licence fee, there is no evidence as there is nothing to show that Ext.A1 is in respect of the leanto. Payment of licence fee for the main structure would not legalise the illegal construction of the leanto. As the leanto was constructed without licence and permit from the respondent, it is liable to be demolished. The civil court can no way interfere with it. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps