Kunju Pillai vs Kunju Pillai
2021 Latest Caselaw 11482 Ker

RSA 728/2019                               1/3

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        Present:
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

                  Thursday,the 8th day of April 2021/18th Chaithra, 1943
                             IA.2/2019 IN RSA.728/2019(C)
AS No.61/2016 of the SUB COURT, PUNALUR

           For information purpose only
OS No.163/2012 of the MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
       KUNJU PILLAI,AGED 44 YEARS,
       S/O.RAMAN,PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU,THENKUDICHAL,
       MANGODU.P.O,PATHANCKAL MURI,PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM
       DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
       SANTHAMMA,AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       W/O.DAMODHARAN PILLAI,RESIDING AT SD BHAVAN,
       PATHANCKAL.P.O,PATHANICKAL MURI,PATHANAPURAM
       TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
         Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased to      stay the operation of and directions in the
judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 17.07.2018 in AS.No.61 of
2016 of the Subordinate Judge, Punalur, pending final disposal of the above appeal.
         This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the
affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.
V.P.K.PANICKER, Advocate for the petitioner, the court passed the following:
                 N. ANIL KUMAR, J.

-----------------------------------------

RSA No. 728 of 2019

----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021

For information ORDERpurpose only

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The RSA is admitted on the following

substantial questions of law;

(1) Whether the plaintiff, aggrieved by

dismissal of an application under Order

XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil

Procedure filed for taking action for

disobedience, can challenge the same in an

appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure against the

original decree without recourse to a

separate appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)

of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(2) In a suit for permanent prohibitory

injunction, is not the plaintiff bound to

prove by legal evidence of her possession RSA No. 728 of 2019

..2..

over the suit property when it is not

covered by admissible documents for the

court to grant a decree in her favour? For information purpose only (3) Whether the first appellate court is

justified in setting aside a judgment and

decree for disobedience of an order of

temporary injunction issued by the trial

court except in accordance with the

procedure established by law?

3. Issue notice.

Post after summer vacation.

IA No. 2 of 2019

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner/appellant.

2. Operation of the judgment and decree dated

17.07.2018 in AS No. 61 of 2016 of the Sub

Court, Punalur stands stayed for a period

three months.

Sd/-

N. ANIL KUMAR JUDGE bka/08.04.2021

/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR