Kerala High Court
Nagaratnam vs Sathybhama on 22 March, 2021
RSA 269/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Monday,the 22nd day of March 2021/1st Chaithra, 1943
IA.4/2021 IN RSA.269/2021 (F)
For information purpose only
AS No.8/2013 of the SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
OS No.185/2007 of the MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1. NAGARATNAM,AGED 78 YEARS,
W/O. RAJAGOPALA GOWDER, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
POST, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI DESOM, KANIYAMPATTA
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK
2. KSHAMAVATHI,AGED 61 YEARS,
D/O. RAJAGOPALA GOWDER, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
POST, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI DESOM, KANIYAMPATTA
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK
3. MADHUSOODHANAN,AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. RAJAGOPALA GOWDER, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
POST, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI DESOM, KANIYAMPATTA
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK
4. SHYLAJA,AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. RAJAGOPALA GOWDER, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
POST, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI DESOM, KANIYAMPATTA
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK
5. ANIL KUMAR,AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. RAJAGOPALA GOWDER, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
POST, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI DESOM, KANIYAMPATTA
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK
6. ANITHA,AGED 51 YEARS,
D/O. RAJAGOPALA GOWDER, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
POST, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI DESOM, KANIYAMPATTA
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK.
RSA 269/2021 2/5
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. SATHYBHAMA,AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O. LATE.A.SUNDER RAJU, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
P.O., KANIYAMPATTA VILLAGE, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI
DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
2.
For information purpose only
SUDHEEP.A.S.,AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O. LATE.A.SUNDER RAJU, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
P.O., KANIYAMPATTA VILLAGE, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI
DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
3. SAJEEP,AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. LATE.A.SUNDER RAJU, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
P.O., KANIYAMPATTA VILLAGE, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI
DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
4. SANDEEP.A.S.,AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE.A.SUNDER RAJU, RESIDING AT AVUVAYAL HOUSE, KARANI
P.O., KANIYAMPATTA VILLAGE, PONGINICHIKKALLUR AMSOM, PULPPADI
DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
5. MEENAKSHI,W/O. LATE PRADEEP.A.R.,AGED 44 YEARS
AVUVAYAL,PWD QUARTERS, BEENCHANAHALLY P.O., ANDHARSANTHA
VILLAGE, H.D. KOTTA TALUK, MYSORE-571 116.
6. PRAJUL,S/O. LATE PRADEEP.A.R., AGED 16 YEARS,
AVUVAYAL,PWD QUARTERS, BEECHANAHALLY P.O., ANDHARASANTHA
VILLAGE, H.D. KOTTA TALUK, MYSORE,MINOR ,REPRESENTED BY
MOTHER,MEENAKSHI W/O. LATE PRADEEP.A.R.,AGED 44 YEARS,
AVUVAYAL, PWD QUARTERS, BEECHANAHALLY P.O., ANDHARSANTHA
VILLAGE, H.D. KOTTA TALUK, MYSORE-571 116
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the
High Court be pleased to stay execution proceedings in OS.185 of 2007 on the files of the
Court of the Munsiff, Kalpetta pursuant to the decree in AS.No.8/2013 on the files of the
Court of the Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery, pending disposal of the RSA.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit
RSA 269/2021 3/5
filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S P.R.VENKATESH and
G.KEERTHIVAS, Advocates for the petitioners the court passed the following:
For information purpose only
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------
R.S.A No.269 of 2021
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021.
For information
O R Dpurpose
ER only
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. This
Regular Second Appeal is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law.
1) Has not the 1st appellate court committed serious
error in reversing the findings of the trial court
regarding the adverse possession and perfection
of title found in favour of the defendants over the
counter claim schedule property ?
2) Whether the 1st appellate court went wrong in
extending the decree for permanent prohibitory
injunction over the entire plaint A schedule property
particularly when the defendants have been in
possession of a portion of the property on the date
of suit ?
3) Whether the 1st appellant court went wrong in
deciding the question of adverse possession and
limitation over the counter claim schedule property?
R.S.A No.269 of 2021
I.A.No.4 of 2021
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
The operation of the judgment and decree in
For information purpose only
O.S.No.185 of 2007 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta
pursuant to the decree in A.S.No.8 of 2013 on the files of Sub
Court, Sulthanbathery shall stand stayed for a period of three
months.
I.A.No.2 of 2021
Issue notice.
R.S.A
Issue notice.
Post after summer vacation.
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR
JUDGE
DK
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
