Kerala High Court
Sumakumari A.K. vs Achuthan Thampi on 18 March, 2021
RSA 261/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Thursday,the 18th day of March 2021/27th Phalguna, 1942
IA,1/2021 IN RSA.261/2021 (F)
For information purpose only
AS No.113/2017 OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
OS No.263/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN RSA:
1. SUMAKUMARI A.K.,,AGED 56 YEARS
SREEBHAVAN HOUSE, (MADATHILPADATHU PUTHEN VEETTIL),
PADINJATTUMCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM
TALUK.
2. MANJUKUMARI A.K.,AGED 64 YEARS,
D/O. BHASKARA PILLAI, SREEBHAVAN HOUSE, PADINJATTUMCHERRY
PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.
3. USHA KUMARI A.K.,AGED 61 YEARS,
D/O. BHASKARA PILLAI, SREEBHAVAN HOUSE, PADINJATTUMCHERRY
PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN RSA:
1. ACHUTHAN THAMPI,,AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. SREEDHARAN THAMPI, ARACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM
TALUK, VAIKOM P.O., PIN-686 141.
2. ANANDARAJ,AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, T.C.9/1575(2) AYSWARYA, CHAKKALAMUKKU,
SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 011.
3. SHALEEL KHAN,AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. SUHARABEEVI, RASAL (HOUSE), PADINJATTUMCHERRY,
PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN-686 141.
4. R.MALLIKADEVI,AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. UNNIKRISHNA MENON, MAKAYIRAM HOUSE, PANAVALLY KARA,
PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O.,
PIN-688 581.
RSA 261/2021 2/5
5. P.S.AJITHKUMAR,AGED 58 YEARS
USHAS HOUSE, PANAVALLY KARA, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA
TALUK, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O., PIN-688 581.
6. SANTHAMANI,AGED 72 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, MEENA BHAVAN, PADINJATTUMCHERRY,
PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM P.O.,
For information purpose only
PIN-686 141.
7. K.S.MEENA,AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, MEENA BHAVAN, PADINJATTUMCHERRY,
PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILALGE, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN-686 141.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the
High Court be pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents
herein, defendants in the suit, from trespassing into plaint item No.4 property, constructing any
fence or compound wall by encroachment, obstructing the plaintiffs from using plaint item
No.4 as a cartable road, committing any waste therein and from doing any acts which would be
detrimental to the title, ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over item No.4 property.
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 R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
NEVIL ZACHARIA MATHEW, R.RANJANIE, Advocates for the petitioners and of M/S.
K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, KAVERY S THAMPI, Advocates for the 1st respondent,
the court passed the following:
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------
R.S.A.No. 261 of 2021
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
Advocate Sathyanatha Menon takes notice for
respondents 1 and 2.
2. This RSA is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law.
(i) Has not the first Appellate Court erred in
reversing the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court without appreciating the
evidence as a whole in respect of the issues
framed by the Trial Court?
(ii) Whether the first Appellate Court decided
the appeal on the sole ground that the
plaintiffs have no title to the suit property
taking a different approach in the
measurement of the area of the each
RSA261/ 2021
..2..
scheduled properties involved in the suit with
For information
reference purpose
to measurement entered only
by the
Commissioner with the help of the Surveyor ?
(iii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified
in overlooking the admission in Exhibit A3
document regarding the existence of a
cartable way, atleast since 1984 as described
in item No.4 property which probabilise the
case of the plaintiffs regarding the width of
the said pathway, and the intention of the
sharers in Exhibit A1 is to vest the title of
item No.4 property to the first plaintiff and
thus to treat it as part and parcel of C
schedule property in Exhibit A1 partition
deed?
Issue notice to respondents 3 to 7
Post after summer vacation.
RSA261/ 2021
..3..
I.A.No.1/2021
For information
Heard the learned purpose
counsel only
for the
petitioners/appellants and the learned counsel for
respondents 1 and 2.
Both parties are directed to maintian status quo as
reported by the Commissioner in Exhibits C3 and C3(a),
plan appended thereto, for a period three months.
Sd/-
N. ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE
kkj
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
