K.Padmanabha Das vs The Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple
2021 Latest Caselaw 11485 Ker

RSA 356/2021                               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.1/2021 IN RSA.356/2021    (A)

           For information purpose only
AS No.74/2017 of the I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

OS No.1181/2011 of the I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT(RCC),

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
       K.PADMANABHA DAS,AGED 59 YEARS
       S/O. KARUNAKARA PANICKER, RESIDING AT T.C 37/2121, ASHTAPADI, INSIDE
       PANCHAJANYAM KALYANAMANDAPAM, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
       DISTRICT 695 023
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
       THE SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE
       FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
       MATHILAKAM OFFICE, SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE, FORT,
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 023


         Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased to      stay all further proceedings pursuant to
judgment and decree in AS.No.74/2017 of the Additional District Judge-I,
Thiruvananthapuram, dated 19.01.2021, till the disposal of the Regular Second Appeal.


         This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the
affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S
M.BALAGOVINDAN, A.ANOOP, T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN, Advocates for the
petitioner       and    of     M/S    P.G.JAYASHANKAR,               P.K.RESHMA
(KALARICKAL),S.RAJEEV, Advocates for the respondent, the court passed the
following:
                      N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
             -------------------------------------------
                    R.S.A.No.356 of 2021
            ---------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021
     For information purpose only
                                ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This RSA is admitted on the following

substantial questions of law.

(i) Has not the first Appellate Court gone wrong

in allowing the appeal stating that sufficient

evidence was not let in by the defendant to

substantiate independent right over the

building?

(ii) Is not the finding of the first Appellate Court

contradictory to its own finding that Exts. A-

10 to A-12 Aquittance Rolls of no evidentiary

value regarding licence and at the same

time, the appellant has proved his case as a

licencee?

(iii) What exactly is the nature of the property

where the building is located? RSA356/ 2021

..2..

(iv) Is not property possessed by the defendant a

For information Kandukrishi land, if so,purpose only what are the legal

implications consequent to Kandukrishi

Proclamation, 1124 (Travancore) issued by

the Maharaja of Travancore and the Sree

Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and

Enfranchisement) Act, 1971?

I.A.No.1/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner/appellant and the learned counsel for the

respondent/respondent.

The learned counsel for the respondent on

instructions submits that further proceedings pursuant to

the judgment and decree in A.S.No.74/2017 of the

Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram is yet to

be initiated. The submission is recorded.

Post after summer vacation

Sd/-

N. ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE kkj

/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR