Kerala High Court
Sarojini vs Prasobha on 30 March, 2021
RSA 108/2021 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Tuesday,the 30th day of March 2021/9th Chaithra, 1943
IA.1/2021 IN RSA.108/2021
For information purpose only
AS No.60/2017 of the ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - III, MAVELIKKARA
OS No.358/2014 of the MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1. SAROJINI, AGED 71 YEARS
W/O LATE KUMARAN, MULAVEETTIL, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL
VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 504.
2. MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O KUMARAN, MULAVEETTIL, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 504.
3. SURESH, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O KUMARAN, MULAVEETTIL, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 504.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
PRASOBHA, AGED 57 YEARS,
D/O THANKAMMA, THARAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, PALLICKALMURI,
PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 504.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the
High Court be pleased to stay the operation of the judgment and decree in AS.No.60 of 2017
of the Additional District Court-III, Mavelikara dated 22.12.2020 during the pendency 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 M/S P.B.SAHASRANAMAN,
T.S.HARIKUMAR, Advocates for the petitioner and of M/S A.R.DILEEP and GEORGE
VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), Advocates for the respondent, the court passed the
following:
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------
I.A.No.1 of 2021
in
R.S.A.No.108 of 2021
For information purpose only
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2021
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the respondent.
2. The defendants are the appellants. The above
second appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the
judgment and decree in A.S.No.60/2017 on the file of the
Additional District Court-III, Mavelikkara dated
22.10.2020 by setting aside the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.358/2014 of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara.
3. On 18.03.2021, after having heard both sides,
this RSA was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law.
(1) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in
entering into a finding of possession of the
plaint B schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff, when the plaintiff has failed to prove
I.A.No.1/2021 in
R.S.A.No.108 of 2021
..2..
title over the plaint schedule property?
For
(2)Is information purpose
not the first Appellate only in
Court justified
granting a prohibitory injunction in favour of
the plaintiff when the finding regarding the
possession is patently illegal?
(3) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in
granting a decree for fixation of boundary by
discarding the plan prepared on the basis of
title deeds of the properties and relying on the
plan prepared on the basis of Re-survey plan?
4. The present application is filed to stay the
operation of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.60/2017
of the Additional District Court-III, Mavelikara during the
pendency of this appeal. Divergent findings are sought to
be assailed in this appeal.
Having taken into consideration the facts and
circumstances, including the substantial questions of law
formulated, it is just and proper to direct both parties to
maintain status quo, as reported by the Commissioner in
I.A.No.1/2021 in
R.S.A.No.108 of 2021
..3..
Exts. C(1) and C1(a) before the Trial Court for a period of
For information purpose only
three months.
Post after summer vacation.
Sd/-
N. ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE
kkj
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
