C.Narayanan vs Yovel Yoha
2023 Latest Caselaw 5299 Ker

S.A. No. 605 of 2001           1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
  TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                         SA NO. 605 OF 2001
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOS 64/1982 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
                              PUNALUR
                AS 46/1986 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA


APPELLANT:

             C.NARAYANAN(Legal Heir)
             ANANDAVILASAM VEEDU, DHERPPAPANA VILAKKUPARA,
             AYILARA MURI, YEROOR VILLAGE.
             BY ADV SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

     1       YOVEL YOHA,
             PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, BLOCK NO.1408 AND 1409,
             DHERPPAPANAVILAKKUPARA, AYILARA MURI, YEROOR
             VILLAGE.
     2       THE STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, QUILON.
     3       THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,
             PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR.
     4       VILLAGE OFFICER,
             YEROOR.
             BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL
             G.P., ADV. SUNIL KURIAKOSE


       THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 S.A. No. 605 of 2001                 2



                   A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE , J.
             ===========================
                       S.A. No. 605 of 2001
             ============================
               Dated this the 25th day of April, 2023

                              JUDGMENT

In a suit for simple injunction, the trial Court found that the 4 th

defendant in the suit who is the appellant herein, is entitled to

recover certain extent of land from the plaintiff. Accordingly, the

injunction was refused. In appeal, the Appellate Court, noting

that the plaintiff is in possession, allowed the suit and granted

injunction.

2. It is to be noted that no suit for recovery of

possession was filed by the 4th defendant. The Appellate Court

reversed the finding of the trial Court noting that the plaintiff is

found to be in possession even as per the revenue records.

Public officials have also been made parties to these

proceedings. It is apparent that the possession is with the

plaintiff.

In such circumstances I find no reason to admit the Second

Appeal. Any way, this being a suit for simple injunction, nothing

prevents the 4th defendant appellant from moving the Civil Court

to recover the excess land alleged to be in possession of the

plaintiff, without prejudice to the injunction granted by the

Appellate Court. The appeal fails. Without prejudice to the right

of the appellant to move the Civil Court for recovery of

possession in accordance with law, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE sbk/-