IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 RSA.No. 944 of 2008() --------------------- AS.272/2006 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.27/1996 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------- C.M.APPUKKUTTAN, S/O.MADHAVAN ILAYATH, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUTHURUTHI ILLAM, VELIYANADUKARA, EDAKKATUVAYAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.C.K.RAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIF ------------------------------------ 1. V.A.THEVAN, S/O.VALLOOKATTIL AYYAN, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT C2-FAMILY QUARTERS, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, CHOONDI, PUTHANCRUZ. 2. N.O.KOUSALYA, W/O.V.A.THEVAN, AGED 5O YEARS, RESIDING AT C2-FAMILY QUARTERS, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, CHOONDI, PUTHANCRUZ. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ...................................... R.S.A. NO. 944 of 2008 ....................................... DATED: 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. No. 27/1996 on the file of the II Addl. Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The said suit was one for a perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants who are husband and wife from trespassing into the plaint schedule property having an extent of 20 cents. 2. The case of the plaintiff can be summariased as follows:- The plaintiff obtained the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 13-12-1995 and his predecessor-in- interest obtained the property as per Ext.A2 settlement deed 28- 08-1968. The plaintiff is in continuation of the possession of his predecessor-in-interest enjoying the plaint schedule property and paying land revenue etc. The defendant who is having R.S.A. No. 944 of 2008 -:2:- property near the plaint schedule property is trying to trespass upon the plaint schedule property alleging that he was having some property on the western side of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor-in- interest had obtained the title over the plaint schedule property both under Exts.A1 and A2 and that the plaintiff was disentitled to seek the interim injunction in respect of the 20 cents of property described in the plaint. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff's assignor's father who had obtained property not in excess of 12 cents could not have assigned that much extent in favour of the plaintiff's assignor or in favour of the plaintiff. It has been held by the courts below that execution of sale deeds or documents with respect to the properties over which the executant has no title will not confer any title upon the transferee. R.S.A. No. 944 of 2008 -:3:- It has been found by the courts below that merely because Exts. A1 and A2 show the extent of the property as 20 cents that by itself will not confer title or possession of that much extent in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, merely because the defendants had by filing a suit for recovery of possession admitted the plaintiff's possession, that by itself will not confer title of the plaintiff's, leave alone possession, over the entire 20 cents scheduled to the plaint. The suit was therefore rightly dismissed by the courts below. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise for determination in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 20th day of October 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. R.S.A. No. 944 of 2008 -:4:- ani/