Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 76428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
THE MANAGER, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. – Appellant
Versus
KUNNATHARA THEKKE VEETTIL GOVINDAN – Respondent
RSA NO. 1177 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAJESH N., SC, PLANTATION CORPORATIO
For the Respondents: SRI.M.SASINDRAN
A plaintiff in a suit for injunction must prove possession of the property as of the date of the suit, and failure to do so results in dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Property Law - Prohibitory Injunction - Injunction based on possession must be supported by material proof of possession as of the date of the suit - The defendant's claims to property must be substantiated by evidence demonstrating lawful possession. (Paras 1, 7, 23)
(B) Procedural Law - Evidence - Evidence must correctly identify the property in question, and inconsistencies in claims regarding actual possession undermine the plaintiff's case. (Paras 10, 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendants for alleged trespass on contended property. The defendants denied the claim, asserting the plaintiff's lack of legal standing to claim rights over the property.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's finding that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove their case is upheld. The claims made by the plaintiff were discredited due to lack of supportive evidence.
Issues: The primary inquiries included whether the plaintiff proved their possession of the suit property and whether the lower court's decisions were justified based on submitted evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that failure to prove lawful possession and inconsistencies in property identification led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for an injunction.
Result: Second appeal allowed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of suit and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. questions of law framed by the court. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. identity and possession of the property in dispute. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. evidence presented by the plaintiff not sufficient. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final finding and court's reasoning support dismissal. (Para 19 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the respondents in AS No.15/2014 on the file of Sub Court, Hosdurg, who are the defendants in OS. No.60 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the suit.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.
3. The Original suit was filed seeking prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into plaint A schedule property or from destroying it's southern boundary or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the original plaintiff, namely Chiri Amma died and the respondent herein was impleaded as her legal representative.
4. According to the plaintiff, her brother K.T. Govindan was in possession and enjoyment of 6 Acres of land in Re-survey No.260/1A1A1 in Cheemeni Village. On the death of K.T. Govindan, the property devolved upon his wife, Kana Madhavi and after the death of Kana Madhavi, the property devolved upon the plaintiff. K.T. Govindan got kuzhikanom right in respect of plaint A schedule property from the Janmi, George Thomas Kottukappally. It is contended that the District Collector, Kannur had prepared a list of tenants, who were in possession of properties situated in the above Survey number prior to 1964 as directed by the State Land Board. Now, the defendants who are southern property owners are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the schedule property.
5. On the other hand, the defendants stoutly denied the claim of the plaintiff. According to them, the plaintiff was never the tenant of George Thomas or any other landlord in respect of the plaint schedule property, that the list prepared by the District Collector will not confer any right to the tenant over the said property, that during the sealing proceedings, the Government has taken huge extent of properties in Cheemeni Village and it was transferred to Plantation Corporation to raise cashew plants, as per order No.MS.741/77/RD dated 13.6.1977. It is contended that the property thus obtained by the defendant is known as Cheemeni Estate and that the property claimed by the plaintiff is part of the Cheememi Estate, which is in the possession and enjoyment of defendants.
6. The trial Court found that the plaintiff failed to identify the property claimed by her as per the list prepared by the District Collector and dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the defendants preferred this second appeal, raising various contentions.
7. At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:
“1. In a suit for injunction based on possession, is not the plaintiff bound to produce materials to prove that he was in possession of the property as on the date of suit ?
2. When it is revealed from the Commissioner's report that there is no property on the southern side of the plaint schedule property belonging to the defendant Corporation, was the lower appellate court justified in granting a decree against the Corporation ?
3. Can the cause of action pleaded in the plaint be true on the basis of the materials produced at the time of evidence ?”
8. Both sides were heard in detail on the above substantial questions of law.
9. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/defe
