IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 SA.No. 230 of 1999(B) --------------------- AS.142/1997 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.7/1995 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, WIDOW OF P.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, KASABA AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHY, DO. DO. DO. 3. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHY, DO. D. D. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. KUMARASWAMI, PAST PRESIDENT, SRI.KANYAKAPARAMESWARI AMMAN KOVIL, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SUKUMARAN, PRESENT PRESIDENT, SRI.KANYAKAPARAMESWARI AMMAN KOVIL, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMAKUMAR THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.676 OF 1999 IN S.A.NO.230 OF 1999 DISMISSED 9.1.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A.No.230 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 9th January, 2008 JUDGMENT No representation for the appellants. However, I am proceeding to decide the appeal on merits since it is seen that the substantial questions of law suggested by the appellants as arising for decision in this Second Appeal do not either arise or are liable to be decided against the appellants. The suit was one for eviction. The building admittedly is situated in an area to which Act 2 of 1965 was applicable. But the plaintiffs filed the suit relying on notification G.O. (Ms)59/93/Hsg. dated 19.11.1993(SRO No.2078/93). The first question of law suggested is regarding the interpretation of this notification. I find that the notification has been correctly interpreted by the learned Munsiff and the learned Subordinate Judge. I also do not find any reason to differ from their interpretations on this notification. The second question of law is one regarding sufficiency of Ext.A1 suit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Mr.P.K.Ramkumar, counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that this question was not pressed before the trial court and the reading of the judgment of the trial court will show that the above submission is correct. The full text of the notice was read over to me by S.A.No.230/99 - 2 - Mr.Ramkumar. I am of the view that the said notice conforms to the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The questions of law raised in the context of Section 106 of the T.P.Act will necessarily have to be answered against the appellants. The Second Appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE