JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.654 of 2012 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda (trial court). The respondents in the second appeal are the defendants in the suit. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the original suit.

2. The plaintiff had sought a decree for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The case of the plaintiff in a nut shell is that, he was conducting a photo frame manufacturing unit named JJ Timbers (in short 'Unit'), which he started nine years prior to the filing of the suit. The 2nd defendant is his sister and the 1st defendant is the husband of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff is residing in the plaint schedule property with his family. The plaintiff started the Unit with the consideration he received by selling another Unit at Angamaly. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the 1st defendant, who transferred the same to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff is suffering from 50% permanent disability. Since he is disabled he could not visit the statutory authorities. Hence, all the licences and permissions for starting the Unit were taken in the name of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant is helping the plaintiff in the business. The plaintiff demanded an amount Rupees Five Lakh for upgrading the Unit. From thereon, the defendants turned inimical towards him. They threatened to take away the machineries from the Unit and disconnected the electricity and water connection. Hence the suit.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement, inter alia, denying the averments in the plaint. The defendants also raised a counter claim for mandatory injunction and damages. The case of the defendants is that, the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, who in turn executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. The Unit is a proprietorship concern. The 2nd defendant had given employment to the plaintiff, as he is a handicapped person and could not do any other work. The plaintiff was permitted to reside in the quarters of the unit in the plaint schedule property along with other employees. The plaintiff has no right in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff stated engaging himself in drinking and playing cards all the time. On 14.07.2012, the defendants directed the plaintiff not to go for employment. Thereafter, he started raising false allegations against the defendants and refused to vacate the plaint schedule building. The plaintiff is a tresspasser. Hence the suit may be dismissed and the counter claim be allowed. The plaintiff is also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards the use and occupation of the quarters in the plaint schedule property.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim by directing the plaintiff to vacate the counter claim schedule building within a period of two months and pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month from 04.07.2012 till the 2nd defendant obtains possession of the building or till the expiration of three years from the date of decree, whichever even first occurs.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.177 of 2016 before the lower Appellate Court.

5. The lower Appellate Court, after appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

6. It is challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below that the appellant is before this Court in this second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law.

i. The accounts and records of the unit including bank records will reveal that the plaintiff is the co-owner, but the license and registration is shows otherwise, and which one will prevail?

ii. Can the court simply ignore the evidence that the loan taken by the appellants herein re