Legal proceedings findings are conclusive; issues concerning entitlement can't be re-litigated in collateral appeals.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------

R.S.A. No.371 of 2011 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings recorded by the Sub Court, Attingal in O.S.No.40 of 1994 and affirmed by the III Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.197 of 2005. In the suit, the appellants faced a suit for recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction. The defence raised in the suit is that the defendants had obtained a Purchase Certificate from the Land Tribunal in a suo motu proceeding. The plaintiffs contended that the 2^nd appellant herein was only the caretaker in respect of the property and that the appellants had in the guise of the entrustment had fraudulently obtained the purchase certificate. Plaintiffs also challenged the proceedings in an appeal before the appellate authority as A.A.No. 186 of 1981. The appellate authority set aside the purchase certificate and remanded the suo motu proceedings for a fresh consideration which was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.9155 of 1982 and by judgment dated 12.01.1988 the Original Petition was dismissed affirming the order of remand by the appellate authority. On remand the Land Tribunal ordered the suo motu proceeding against the appellants. By the time the suit came up for trial, the proceedings of the Land Tribunal in S.M.C.No.49 of 1992 was already finalised and the appeal preferred by the appellants/ defendants was also dismissed. But the matter was pending before this Court in a revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that though the plaintiffs were not entitled for a decree of declaration of title, proceeded to pass a conditional decree to the effect that, if the findings in S.M. proceeding No.49 of 1992 had become final and in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the possession of the building. Consequentially, an injunction was also passed. Aggrieved the defendants preferred A.S.No.197 of 2005. Before the appellate court, the plaintiffs produced the copy of the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.709 of 2001 and 874 of 2001, wherein the findings of the Land Tribunal as affirmed by the appellate authority was confirmed and revision filed by the defendants was dismissed. Accordingly, the appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and confirmed the decree and allowed the plaintiffs to recover the plaint schedule property through process of court, which is challenged in the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri.N.K.Subramanyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

3. Sri.N.K.Subramanyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the findings of the courts below are per se incorrect and are vitiated by perverse appreciation of evidence. It is further contended that the possession of the defendants’ predecessor was hit by Section 9 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963 and that the courts below had not considered the provisions of Section 51 and 13A of the in its right perspective. At any rate, it is pointed out that the trial court could not have granted a conditional decree for recovery of possession. It is further pointed out that once the trial court has found that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the declaration of title, the suit itself ought to have been dismissed.

4. On considering the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court is of the considered view that none of the contentions can sustain in view of the fact that this Court had confirmed the findings of the Land Tribunal in a suo motu proceeding No.49 of 1992 against the appellant when C.R.P.Nos.709 of 2001 and 874 of 2001 were di