Geetha vs L.Radhakumari
2023 Latest Caselaw 7674 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
        FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945
                         RSA NO. 512 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2020 IN AS 60/2019 OF
                        SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2019 IN OS 209/2009 OF
                      MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

    1       GEETHA
            AGED 56 YEARS
            W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR,THANUVELIL HOUSE,
            CHERIYANADU WEST MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE,
            CHENGANNUR TALUK-689 511.

    2       VIJAYAKUMAR,
            AGED 67 YEARS,H/O.GEETHA,THANUVELIL HOUSE,
            CHERIYANADU WEST MURI,CHERIYANADU VILLAGE,
            CHENGANNUR TALUK-689 511.

            BY ADV N.ASHOK KUMAR



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

            L.RADHAKUMARI
            AGED 63 YEARS,
            D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,CHENNALLOOR HOUSE,PONNEZHA
            MURI,THEKKEKARA VILLAGE,MAVELIKKARA TALUK-690107.
            (PRESENT ADDRESS NO.2,SLN ILLOM,AYYAVU STREET,
            AMJIKARAI,SHENAY NAGAR,CHENNAI-30).

            BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)




     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RSA NO. 512 OF 2021
                                      2



                            T.R.RAVI, J.
                    ----------------------------------------
                        RSA No.512 of 2021
                   -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 14th day of July, 2023

                           JUDGMENT

The defendants in a suit for declaration of title and

recovery of possession are before the Court in this second

appeal. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part and

ordered recovery of possession of 5 items, out of the total

extent of properties included in the plaint schedule. The

Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree. The

main contention taken in the second appeal is that the

property has not been identified and what is now ordered

to be recovered are different plots situated in different

areas with different boundaries while the entire plaint

schedule is shown with one boundary. It is also submitted

that even though the claim was regarding properties in

192/7A and 192/7B, what is now decreed is, without

identifying the property in 192/7A and 7B.

I have heard the counsel for the appellants and the

respondents and have considered the judgments of the RSA NO. 512 OF 2021

Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court

clearly found that the Commissioner has identified 5 items

of properties and the rest of the properties were not

identified for the reason that there were no sufficient

materials. The properties which are identified have been

clearly marked in the plan attached as Ext.C7. The First

Appellate Court has agreed with the findings. The two

Courts on facts have found that there is proper

identification of the properties as far as the 5 items are

concerned. There is no reason to unsettle the said findings

in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure since it is a pure question of fact. There is no

serious dispute regarding the title which has been found in

favour of the plaintiff based on Ext.A2 partition deed

No.1369/1120ME of Sub Registrar's Office, Chengnannur.

In the above circumstances, as no substantial

questions of law arise, the second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE sn