[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ramesan P.K vs P.K.Raghava Menon on 23 February, 2026
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 1 2026:KER:15145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
RSA NO. 148 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.8.2015 IN AS NO.44 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR, ARISING OUT OF
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.12.2011 IN O.S. NO.113 OF 2009 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA,
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS :
1 RAMESAN P.K
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.BHANUMATHY AMMA, PULPARAKUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM.P.O., PIN-683580.
2 AMBIKA.P.K.
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O.BHANUMATHY AMMA, KIZHAMATHIL HOUSE,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM.P.O., PIN-683580.
3 RAMANAN.P.K.
AGED 54 YEARS S/O.BHANUMATHY AMMA,
PARAS CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,
BLOCK-212-C-WING, B.P.ROAD, X ROAD-5,
BHAYANDER-E, THANE MUMBAI,
REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
RAMESAN.P.K.(1ST APPELLANT)
4 MUKUNDAN.P.K.
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.BHANUMATHY AMMA, PLOT NO.403,
BLDG.NO.B-13, SECTION X MIRA ROAD,
(E) (THANE MUMBAI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
RAMESAN.P.K.(1ST APPELLANT)
5 GIRIJA BHUVANEDRAN
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O.BHANUMATHY AMMA, C-2/534 SECTION 16,
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 2 2026:KER:15145
VASHI-NEW MUMBAI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
RAMESAN.P.K.(1ST APPELLANT)
6 RAMADEVI.P.K.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.BHANUMATHY AMMA,
OOTHRAYIL HOUSE, THALAKKOLLY DESOM,
PIN-683102.
BY ADV.B.JAYASANKAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS :
1 P.K.RAGHAVA MENON,
AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
MANOVIHAR, MANJALI PARAMBIL,
CHOWARA P.O., PIN-683571.
2 L.R.SANKUNNY MENON,(DIED-LHRS IMPLEADED)
AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.MADAVAI AMMA,
POOMIMA, KADUVAL JUNCTION,
PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542.
3 MURALEEKRISHNAN,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.P.K.AYYAPPAN,
VRINDAVAN, KANJOOR.P.O., PIN-683575.
4 DROUPATHY GADADHARAN,
AGED 74 YEARS, D/O.MADAVI AMMA,
KOVILAKATHU HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU.P.O.,
PIN-683579.
5 PADMINI NARAYANAN,
AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
BLDG.NO.9, R.NO.267, VRINDAVAN,
SASTHRI NAGAR, GOREGAON (EST),
MUMBAI-4.
6 RAVEENDRAN.P.K.,(DIED-LHRS IMPLEADED)
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
PULPARAKUTTIKAT HOUSE,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM, PIN-683580.
7 VIJAYAN,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
PULPARAKUTTIKAT HOUSE,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM, PIN-683580.
8 RAJALAKSHMY,
AGED 64 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNA MENON,
CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O., PIN-679531.
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 3 2026:KER:15145
9 SWAYAMPRABHA,
AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNA MENON,
SREEYAS, ANAKKARA.P.O., OTTAPPALAM,
PIN-679551.
10 PADMINI,
AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNA MENON,
NO.12 JALLEN 12/10A 46200,
PETALING JAYA SELAMGOR, DARUL ELSAN,
WEST MALAYSIA.
11 BALARAM MENON,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA MENON,
NO.12 JALLEN 12/10A 46200,
PETALING JAYA SELAMGOR,
DARUL ELSAN, WEST MALAYSIA.
12 RAVEENDRAN,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA MENON,
NO.12 JALLEN 12/10A 46200,
PETALING JAYA SELAMGOR, DARUL ELSAN,
WEST MALAYSIA.
13 VISALAM.P.K.,
AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
PARAKKADA HOUSE, ASHRAMAM ROAD,
KALADY-683574.
ADDL.R14 SREERANJINI,
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.RAVEENDRAN P.K.,
RESIDING AT VIJAYA VILASAM,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM,
CHOWARA,ALUVA,PIN-683580.
ADDL.R15 ADDL.SREELAKSHMI,
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O.RAVEENDRAN P.K.,
RESIDING AT VIJAYA VILASAM,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM,
CHOWARA, ALUVA, PIN-683 580.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R6 ARE IMPLEADED
AS ADDL.R14 AND R15 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.04.2023 IN
IA.304/2018.)
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 4 2026:KER:15145
ADDL.R16 OMANA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
W/O. L.R.SANKUNNY MENON,
POORNIMA,MANOCKATHAZHATH,
BROADWAY,PERUMBAVOOR,PIN-683542.
ADDL.R17 K.K.S.MENON,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O.
L.R.SANKUNNY MENON, POORNIMA,
MANOCKATHAZHATH, BROADWAY,
PERUMBAVOOR,PIN-683542.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R2 ARE IMPLEADED AS
ADDL.R16 AND R17 AS PER ORDERDATED 20.09.2023 IN
IA.2/2023.)
R3 BY ADVS.SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
SMT.T.MANASY
SMT.M.REMA MENON
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 5 2026:KER:15145
EASWARAN S., J.
-----------------------------
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in a suit for injunction concurrently non-suited by the
courts below have come up in the present appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as
follows:
An extent of 25 cents of land originally belonged to one Madhavi
Amma, the grant mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and late
Krishna Menon, obtained under a partition deed in the year 1962. The
mother of the plaintiffs was also allotted the larger extent of property
under B schedule to the said partition deed. It is contended that the
defendants 1 and 2 and late Krishna Menon were never interested in the
property after the partition, and Madhavi Amma and Bhanumathy Amma
continued to be in possession of the property, and later, on the death of
Madhavi Amma, Bhanumathy Amma came into absolute possession of the
property based on which, she had mutated the property and had remitted
the tax. Later, according to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2, along with
some of the legal heirs of Krishna Menon, had sold the undivided rights
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 6 2026:KER:15145
over the plaint schedule property to the 3rd defendant, and the 3rd
defendant attempted to trespass into the property and collect the
usufructs. The 3rd defendant requested the plaintiffs to help him to
demarcate his property from the rest of the land of late Bhanumathy
Amma. The 1st plaintiff requested him not to interfere with the peaceful
possession, and the properties were in the exclusive possession of late
Bhanumathy Amma until her death. Since the defendants were not
amenable to the request of the 1st plaintiff, they apprehended that their
possession over the plaint schedule property would be disturbed. The 3rd
defendant resisted the suit by contending that he had purchased the
property from the legal heirs of late Krishna Menon and defendants 1 and
2 on 20.11.2007 by sale deed No.360 of 2008 and had mutated the
property in his name. A possession certificate was also issued by the
Village Officer in his name. It is also contended that the plaintiffs had no
exclusive right over the property and that the suit against the co-owner is
not maintainable. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A7 documents
were produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined and on behalf of the
defendants, Exts.B1 to B9 series documents were produced, and DW1 to
DW4 were examined. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are
claiming an injunction against the true owner who had purchased the
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 7 2026:KER:15145
property from defendants 1 and 2 and the legal heirs of Krishna Menon
and therefore declined to grant an injunction. While holding so, the trial
court also found that the plaintiffs have remitted tax only to an extent of
0.42 Ares of land and thus the claim for exclusive possession cannot be
believed. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.44 of 2012 before the
Additional District Court-II, North Paravur. In the appellate stage, the
plaintiffs contended that the tax receipts produced by the defendants were
forged by the defendants through their lawyer, and, to evidence the said
fact, a complaint was lodged before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Aluva as C.C. No.44 of 2014; a copy of the order passed therein
was produced as additional document. Additional documents were
marked in evidence as Exts.A8 and A9. Nevertheless, the first appellate
court concurred with the findings of the trial court and found that the
plaintiffs had failed to prove the possession of the plaint schedule property
in its entirety and therefore dismissed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiffs are
before this Court in the present appeal.
3. On 24.7.2017, this Court framed the substantial question of law
as follows:
When a suit has been filed for the plaintiffs who are co-
owners and also for and on behalf of another co-owner who
was not in station by impleading him as one of the
defendants, are the courts below justified in not granting the
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 8 2026:KER:15145
relief sought for by the plaintiffs merely on the ground that
the said relief has been sought for in favour of that co-
owner/defendant also?
4. Heard Sri. B Jayasankar, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Smt. M. Rema Menon, the learned counsel appearing for
the 3rd respondent.
5. Sri. B Jayasankar, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, contended that the remedy of the 3rd defendant, if any, is to file
a suit for partition because he has only purchased an undivided share over
the property. The plaintiffs, being in exclusive possession of the entire 25
cents, were thus entitled to maintain a simple suit for injunction based on
the possession alone. It is pointed out that all the legal heirs of Krishna
Menon had not joined the execution of the sale, and therefore, the sale
deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Since the sale deed is not binding
upon the plaintiffs, there is no requirement for the plaintiffs to challenge
the sale deed or set aside the same. The rights of the vendors of the
defendants, if any, have been lost due to ouster and therefore they cannot
also seek for partition of the property. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in Lekshmi v. Velukutty [1981 KHC 186], the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam
Dhuri (D) Thr. Lrs. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 565], and in S.K. Golam
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 9 2026:KER:15145
Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal
Bayes & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024] [2024 INSC 676:AIR 2024
SC 4193].
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
countered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/plaintiffs and contended that the entire case set up by the
plaintiffs must fail for the simple reason that the plaintiffs have
suppressed the material facts from the purview of the court. Referring to
Ext.B9, which was marked during the oral testimony of the plaintiffs
themselves, the learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs themselves
have paid tax to the extent of 0.42 Ares of land in survey No.163/6, thereby
clearly indicating the fact that they have accepted the extent of property
set apart by the sharers under the 1962 partition deed. At any rate, the
plaintiffs, being the children of Bhanumathi Amma, can only claim 1/4th
share of the 1/4th share of Madhavi Amma over 25 cents of land and that
the other co-owners are perfectly justified in transferring the undivided
share to the 3rd defendant. Thus, it is pointed out that there cannot be any
injunction against the co-owner. Lastly, it is pointed out that the act of the
plaintiffs in instituting the criminal complaint against the lawyer of the 3rd
defendant shows the extent of falsity of the claim set up by the plaintiffs.
It is pointed out by referring to the judgment of this Court in Crl. M.C.
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 10 2026:KER:15145
No.4195 of 2015, that the proceedings taken by the 1st plaintiff against the
lawyer of the 3rd defendant has been found to be an abuse of process of
law and, subsequently, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Angamaly, had discharged the other accused who are the defendants in
the suit from the offences charged against them. It is further submitted
that in the light of the uncontroverted evidence in the form of tax receipts,
possession certificate and also mutation records, it is evident that the 3rd
defendant is the absolute owner in respect of an extent of 9.75 Ares of land
which cannot be disputed by the plaintiffs.
7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and
perused the judgments of the courts below and the records of the case.
8. In this appeal, this Court is called upon to decide whether the
concurrent findings of the courts below require interference under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. One of the reasons which
promoted the trial court to dismiss the suit is that the co-owner, along
with the plaintiffs, was not joined together in the suit for injunction. The
13th defendant is one of the co-owners who was not interested in joining
with the plaintiffs. The oral testimony of the plaintiffs clearly establishes
that the 13th defendant is not interested in the litigation. Most pertinently,
the plaintiffs themselves admitted to have remitted tax under Ext.B9(a)
tax receipt only in respect of 0.42 Ares of land. This is in complete
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 11 2026:KER:15145
contradiction to the case set up in the plaint wherein the plaintiffs claim
that they had remitted tax for the entire extent of 25 cents. Further,
reliance placed on the records of transfer of registry also cannot help the
case of the plaintiffs, especially in the light of the oral testimony of the
Village Officer who clearly deposed that, consequent to the sale in favour
of the 3rd defendant, he had not made a corresponding reduction in the
basic Thandaper Register of the property.
9. That apart, the larger question to be considered by this Court is
whether the suit for injunction against the co-owner is maintainable.
Though the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently pointed out
that the remedy of the 3rd defendant is to institute a suit for partition to
get separate possession of the property, this Court does not think fit to go
into the said question because the primary question to be considered is
whether the present suit, as it is framed, is maintainable. It is true that if
the 3rd defendant finds that his right is affected in any manner, it is up to
him to take recourse through law. But that act by itself will not enable the
plaintiffs to claim exclusive possession of the property.
10. Moreover, the plaintiffs themselves do not appear to have a
consistent case. In the plaint, an exclusive possession of the entire 25 cents
is claimed by them, but before this Court, what is argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants is that they are the co-owners of the
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 12 2026:KER:15145
property. This Court finds that the said contention is mutually destructive.
11. Once the plaintiffs admitted that they are the co-owners of the
property, it must also be equally held that the other co-owners are entitled
to sell the undivided shares which they hold over the property. No doubt,
going by the decision of this Court in Lekshmi v. Velukutty [1981 KHC
186], it is held that the purchaser of an undivided share of a co-owner gets
only an equity to enforce partition and takes the share when partitioned,
subject to all liabilities on it in the hands of the vendor. But the aforesaid
decision is not an authority for the proposition that a suit for injunction is
maintainable against a co-owner.
12. In Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam
Dhuri (D) Thr. Lrs. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 565], the Supreme Court
considered the question whether a co-owner can transfer more than his
undivided share in a joint family property, and it was held that the co-
owner's possession over the property cannot be disturbed unless it is
partitioned in accordance with law.
13. In S.K. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal
Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024]
[2024 INSC 676:AIR 2024 SC 4193], the Supreme Court held that the sale
deed executed in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, may be a valid document to the extent of the share of the co-
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 13 2026:KER:15145
sharer but, however, the vendor will have to take remedies to claim
appropriate relief either by a suit for partition or by a suit for
compensation for damages.
14. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants will
not help the cause projected by the plaintiffs. In the present case, what is
sought for is an injunction against a true owner who is vested with the
right, title and interest over the majority shares of the property. It may be
true that the 3rd defendant may have to file a suit for partition, if so
advised, to get separate possession of the property in order to have
completeness to the devolution of title. But then, that by itself will not
enable the plaintiffs to claim injunction against him and if the plea of the
plaintiffs is sustained, necessarily, the courts will be preventing a true
owner from accessing his property, which is impermissible under law.
15. Yet another aspect in the case is whether the plaintiffs had
succeeded in proving that they are in possession of the plaint schedule
property. Reference is placed on the tax receipt and also the records of
transfer of registry to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the
entire extent of the property. However, the 3rd defendant was able to
destroy the case projected by the plaintiffs by bringing it in evidence
Ext.B9(a), which stood admitted by the plaintiffs when they were cross-
examined. It was categorically admitted by the plaintiffs that they had
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 14 2026:KER:15145
remitted the tax only in respect of the extent of the property set apart by
the shares towards the share of Bhanumathi Amma, the mother of the
plaintiffs. The extent of falsity of the case set up by the plaintiffs is
evidenced by the fact that they chose to lodge a criminal complaint against
the 3rd defendant and his lawyer on the allegation that both of them have
forged the tax receipts, namely, Exts.B9 and B9(a) series. One must
remember that the said complaint was lodged after compromising the
criminal complaint lodged by the 3rd defendant alleging trespass into the
extent of 9.75 cents of land and taking the usufructs therein. Ext.B8 record
of proceedings before the jurisdictional Station House Officer shows that
the matter was compromised therein, and the plaintiffs were cautioned
not to transgress into the property of the 3rd defendant. Filing of the
criminal complaint was made soon after the criminal case against the
plaintiffs was closed as settled out of court.
16. As far as the criminal case lodged against the 3rd defendant is
concerned, the learned counsel pointed out that in Crl. M.C. No.4195 of
2015, this Court had quashed the Criminal Complaint against the 3rd
defendant's lawyer, and also in subsequent proceedings before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, all the accused were
discharged by order dated 16.11.2022. Therefore, the totality of the facts
and circumstances projected in the present case leads to an inference that
R.S.A. No.148 of 2016 15 2026:KER:15145
the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their possession over the entire
extent of 25 cents of land.
17. Coming to the substantial question of law framed in the
memorandum of appeal, this Court is inclined to conclude that the said
question of law does not arise for consideration at all in the light of the
categoric finding rendered by the courts below that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove their possession over the plaint schedule property and also
considering the fact that the suit for injunction will not lie against the co-
owner, this Court is inclined to conclude that though a substantial
question of law was framed by this Court, actually no such substantial
question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
