Kerala High Court
Sadanandan Pillai vs Patichanezhathu Kudumba Kshethram on 29 October, 2025
2025:KER:81915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/7TH KARTHIKA, 1947
RSA NO. 354 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2014 IN AS
NO.6 OF 2014 OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA ARISING OUT OF
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2013 IN OS NO.283 OF
2012 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
SADANANDAN PILLAI
AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI,
RESIDING AT KOTHAMANGALATH HOUSE, KODAMTHURUTH
MURI , KODAMTHURUTHU P.O.ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,
PIN - 688533
BY ADV
SRI.ROY CHACKO
RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
1 PATICHANEZHATHU KUDUMBA KSHETHRAM
KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY
RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, NELLIPALLI VEEDU,
ETTUMANOOR NORTH NADA, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT. (DIED), PIN - 686631
2 PATICHANEZHATHU KUDUMBA. KSHETHRAM
KODAMTHUNITH VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY
PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, NELLIPALLI VEEDU,
ETTUMANOOI NORTH NADA, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT. (DIED, PIN - 686631
2025:KER:81915
R.S.A No.354 of 2024
2
3 UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR
AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI,
PERUMBATTU HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU P.O.,
KODAMTHURUTHU MURI, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.,
PIN - 688533
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SHYAM, FOR R3
SRI.S.SHARATH, FOR R3
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81915
R.S.A No.354 of 2024
3
EASWARAN S., J
--------------------------------
R.S.A No.354 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings
of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala in O.S
No.283/2012 and affirmed by the Sub Court, Cherthala,
in A.S No.6/2014.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal
of the appeal are as follows:-
The plaintiff / appellant instituted the suit for
declaration and consequential injunction. According to
the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property is in possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiff from 1972 onwards and in
continues possession of his predecessor-in-interest. Any
right that the defendant is lost by the adverse possession
and limitation. The plaint schedule property is one that is
2025:KER:81915
supposed to be intended to be one utilised for the
defendant temple, managed by the elder member of the
family. But, such a right was not enjoyed at all at any
rate from 1972 onwards and hence the same is
abandoned. The defendant filed objection stating that the
defendant has no connection with Padichinezhath
Kudumba Kshethram and as such there is no temple. It
was further contended that, the plaint schedule property
is not scheduled and the survey numbers and the extent
of the boundaries shown are incorrect. A further
contention was also raised that the legal mandate of
Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is
not followed and the requirements of Order 7 of the
Code of Civil Procedure is also not met. Faced with the
situation, the plaintiff sought an amendment of the plaint
by giving up the prayer for declaration of title by adverse
possession. He confined his relief to an injunction alone.
However, the defendant later raised a preliminary issue
2025:KER:81915
as regards the maintainability of the suit for lack of
pleadings. The trial court accepted the said plea and
dismissed the suit for lack of pleadings and consequently
on the same day, dismissed the application for
amendment. The dismissal of the suit was challenged in
the appeal before the Sub Court, Cherthala, as A.S.
No.6/2014, which was also dismissed. The judgment and
decree of the First Appellate Court was initially
impugned in R.S.A No.66/2019, which was withdrawn
with liberty to file a review petition against the judgment
of the First Appellate Court. The review petition was
dismissed on 09.02.2024 and hence, the present appeal
is filed challenging the order in the review petition as
well as the original judgment.
3. Heard Shri.Roy Chacko, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri.S.Shyam,
the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
2025:KER:81915
4. When this appeal was admitted to file on
27.11.2024, this Court framed the following substantial
questions of law:-
(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in
dismissing the suit on a preliminary issue
which does not relate to the jurisdiction of
the Court or statutory bar which are stated
in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC ?
ii. Whether the lack of pleadings in support
of the claim for adverse possession could be
a ground for deciding the suit on
preliminary issue?
iii. Whether notice under Order 1 Rule 8
CPC is required when the suit is filed with
respect a property belonging to the 1 st
respondent-Temple?
5. Shri.Roy Chacko, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant pointed out that the
dismissal of the suit by the trial court for lack of
pleadings is not related to the jurisdiction of court or
statutory bar as stated under Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of
Civil Procedure and hence the suit could not have been
dismissed on preliminary issue. At any rate, a lack of
pleadings for the pleading of adverse possession could
2025:KER:81915
not be construed as one entitling the court to frame a
preliminary issue. The requirement of order 1 Rule 8 of
Code of Civil Procedure and the other requirements to
sustain the plea sought for in the plaint are matters
which should govern the attention of the court, after the
parties adduced evidence. Therefore, he submitted that
the order passed by the courts below are unsustainable.
Though these irregularities were brought to the notice of
the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court
refused to review its order and hence the order on the
review petition also requires interference. He further
pointed out that the defendant in the suit had expired
and therefore the judgment rendered by the trial court is
itself is a nullity.
6. Per contra, Shri.S.Shyam, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent supported the
findings of the courts below and contended that even if
the suit is send back, no useful purpose will be served,
2025:KER:81915
inasmuch as there is no sufficient pleadings to sustain
the plea of adverse possession. Thus, he prayed that the
concurrent findings rendered by the courts below be
affirmed and the appeal be dismissed.
7. I have considered the rival submissions
raised across the Bar and perused the judgments
rendered by the courts below.
8. On consideration of the rival submissions
raised across the Bar, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellant is entitled to succeed. A suit
could be dismissed on a preliminary issue, only if it
meets the conditions set out under Order 14 Rule 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid proposition
requires no further elaboration at the hands of this
Court. Equally so, the requirement to comply with the
procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code
of Civil Procedure also would arise only after completion
of the trial court and when the merits of the matter is
2025:KER:81915
being considered. The findings of the courts below that
the plea of adverse possession is not supported by any
pleadings cannot be sustained inasmuch as the plaintiff
had filed I.A No.3247/2013 on 16.11.2013 requesting the
deletion of the prayer for declaration of title by adverse
possession and confining the relief to a decree of
injunction. The dismissal of the application after
rendering of the judgment was highly improper. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the judgments of the courts below cannot be sustained.
9. Accordingly, the substantial questions of
law are answered in favour of the appellant as follows:-
The dismissal of the suit under Order 14 Rule 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be sustained since
the condition set out under the aforesaid provision is not
met. Since the plea of adverse possession has been given
up, the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plea
of adverse possession is not supported by the pleadings
2025:KER:81915
also is unsustainable. The requirement of mandate under
Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be
decided as a preliminary issue.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed by setting
aside the judgment dated 21.12.2013 in
O.S.No.283/2012 by the Principal Munsiff Court,
Cherthala, and also the judgment dated 06.12.2018 in
A.S No.6/2014 by the Sub Court, Cherthala and the
order dated 09.02.2024 in R.P.No.13/2020 in A.S
No.6/2014 on the files of the Sub Court, Cherthala.
Consequently, O.S No.283/2012 will stand restored to
the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala, I.A
No.3247/2013 will stand allowed. The plaintiff will be
allowed to amend the suit and incorporate necessary
corrections as sought for. Since the sole defendant
expired at the time when the judgment was rendered,
the plaintiff will be at liberty to implead the Karanavar /
eldest member of the family representing the defendant-
2025:KER:81915
temple within a period of two weeks from the date of
appearance. On such application being filed, the
Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala, shall allow the said
application for impleading the additional defendants and
proceed with the trial of the suit after affording
opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. The
parties shall appear before the Principal Munsiff Court,
Cherthala, on 10.11.2025.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
AMR
2025:KER:81915
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.
13/2020 IN A.S. 6/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE SUB COURT,CHERTHALA,DATED
9.2.2024.
