SA/11/1980 of GEEVARGHESE SAMUEL OF KALEECCKAL Vs KESAVA PILLAI KRISHNA PILLAI on 3 March 1982

1. ·Gecvargl:icsc Sam11el ·01L:Jlccli:l">-llt;KuttrimpcroorMuri,unnarvill og't!.2..Sa#uelSo0sane '± do, I/

'a.Gccvarghesc Thankaut.ma01do.

4'.Gccvargbcsc John o_f do.do,

IBy .lHive,.r,1/'s.'K:,c.John,GeorgeVarghese& K.K"John Respond cnt§/~cspondcnts/Dcfc nclants:

'/1.KcsavaPillai Kr'istmaFt'l la i of Devi sadanam,do,Muri,do. village (died)do. village (died)

2. Cella.Anandavalliammaof do.

3. Gccvargu.csc.d1ilti,(>SC of£ntIhu•.ppall i of do.4.K.K.Gopa18 fill~i ofSftnkaromangalt,thu, Kurattikkat4.K.K.Gopa18 fill~i ofSftnkaromangalt,thu, Kurattikkat .Muri,.M.nnu ar villagc.

:ilJ:nl

Second respondent is recorded· as the legal icprcscntative of the deceased first respondelt at the risk of appellants aser order dt.3-2-8i on memo e.1.505/81

dated 29-1--1981.

ByAdvs./s.i.G..Panic«er,k.S,Radhakn isbna»i..Balakrishnan & 1.B.M0lan iumr.

___c_._R_.__±.N____o._3__36...,0/8-_J

(B.t'.N().209/77 i-n o.s.No.16'1/'15 of the.w.unsiff's ·court, MaYCl'ikkara)

.Petitioner/decree holder/plaintiff,:

Kcsava. f'illai.h.ri stma.Pillai ofDcvcsadanathil fro'.11

Kollalivadakketbil,Kutta11.peroor i\:;.uri, hlonn~r village.

(aied) Legal reprcsentativef impleacled.

Acldl.P2.-.Cncllamma J.narKiavalli.Amma of Dcvisa·danathilfrom Kollelivadakettil,KuttamperoorMuri,Mormar villogc •.,---..

Addl.,t. is ipleaded as the legal representative of de~eascd1stpetitioner vide order dated17-12-1981 on Cir.1832/81.

.

,•

By Advs./s..G.±.±anicker,i.S.Balakristnan &

-K. S •ld hakri SUiltlf) •.

'I

gyondgnt s/Ju@gent debtors/Defendants

1. Gccvo.rgLcscSamuel of Kalceckal Vecttil,Kuttamperoor 1Muri,.i.Vannar village.'

2. SosaJ11ma of do.do.l,.et>rrected)

- The cause title of t ii.c 2nd respond cut is corrected t1sSoosamma i nstcad ~'.f Sosor.<tina as per the order dated//9-8-1979 on CM.10865/79.

I

.

------.c:.,-----~-------.=-------~--

./

I

e

I

f····:~·:;:,-t;,::_;;-,_

±

la: ~(rva;r-ghe,sc l~l¼~k.['tjiiimo.of do.d-d~7;&'av~·sitci·i:-i-~e--.John-.- -:_.-'\_ files~ seeond appeals ttoo c.n. P~ imv:1-.,.,_•.._,..~:~-----kmasigrass been heard om 33--1982,the court:on tHe\....•.;;r": -•...,, ll8J)le_ ·ia,- ,ck!iivied the ro11owing@%

·::·-,. .:\.-.:.•_..-~·....-.:.,-.-.·...:·.· ·.·....:'::-.,_.·--..-.,_.- :,\;. : ~.<.. '.C- _, /

i

r

I,'

.\

/

", '

.• se>-.-tom%

'I.

'..A. Nos.11 nl28Yr 1980a.0.R. .F. No.. 3360f 1918.

-

8A. Hos.11 and 28 of 1980.---

. 111ese appeal• oan be disposed ofat togetiier•. s J.,.· 1o.11 of 1980 arises out ot O .s .No .167 o~ 1975' 111d of the'.\fflmsi.tfts eourt, 'Mawl.1lt,aia, and s .A.tto.28 or 1980 .hell-•;I,0.°.No.172 of 1975,These suits were tried together.Defend-ant.s Nos. 1 to lt- in 0.No.167 0£ 1975 re the p1int1+fs tn0 .8.R0.172 0£ 1975.Apart from the J)ltd.nt:U"f' in f:\ .s .Ne.167of 197, tnree other pe-rsons had also ,omed asd.Bfendtitnts in0.8.No172 of 1975

-.,,_2. 0. ..No.167 r,t 191; •• ftl,.ed. tor a penuan••

in,junction restraining the defendants from trespassing/. intotherein oontended tba-t there was a •tbcdtl' a.nd that the.~..., tbodu.- ws used ~time immemoriaJ. for dre.1nil'ig the ·waterh'oll the prop0rty and that they head aeq\11red an ••emenlin respect thereof -I

:ft

•3.oJ/>.Jo.1?2 o-t 19" vu fUM i.ra dteelaa.u.ot -. ••emeat npt ta.19$~ ct \be • t!lOda' aa4 roa-. injunction restreining the det'en&.nts tb.OJ"UA who· wea tM. plaintiff and othen 1n c .s .»o.167 ot 1,?S, tJ.oa ol>8vueUDI:..

lf-. !b• v-.La1 cov.n...... o.sJo.167 of 191s ·-tU,sm.•ae4 C.8J0•1?2 of 19?J.After a WJ'J' elabol'ale .,.-'Sider&tl:0'1 or the andence 1n tha ease,-and the incd.--wbidl atarted troa tbtJ n.ling of a petitiCll t.eton the RevereOivisionul. Officer, th$ pc.,llce a.dlcm bre!ll !\'.t,d otb• tacts.the trial curt entered a fudng that the defen&uts havetailed to prove that tbey' had a' right of esement for the.pisint schedule rperty.Te tr1al court as psrtiu3Arlyipr=seed. y th.e evidence of EH.2 and k,TH,vs haring'some lnd to the nortb of the ploint pro.P£r't7• B• ••di'te.aUiied to the tact that then lid no •ter Chl_.1 aaTIe tr1a1 ourt also noted tint there was no ss tht the•tbo"1':ln q11est1on, was a public waler __,al.- tb\Jltt • a(t()Uicterat.ion or the entiJ'e evidenOI th•- elallD set up by the.•---•de.tenants therein was fund to be Vitllt.od tJ.r,r ba+

3

5. In the Ue,it or the above N.n41.ng, the suit 0 Ji0.172 0£ 1975 was dismissed. The lower appellate court...

poeed the, p0int tor decision as Vb.ether the dete:tdN1w, 1n o.s Jo.167 qf 1975 o.nd the.._ p:taintirts ~'1 o.s.Bo~172 0£ 1975'

were entitled o a d.ealara.tion ot easement !a nspeel of the "• '1lodU'. The requirernents for an acqu1$.1t,1on oz easeJaeDt lad/·-.beea «&plained b7 the lover appellate· court in pampepb-7

of its judgent.After adverting to tie pleadings in the case the court bc,J.ow oosei'Jied:

RFJom these averments it is clear

~hat the right of drining out

water. 18 not elFimed to have been

exercised by tb.e appellantsw.itb

the cons eiousn.ss tbftt tht'eir uer

~was_ cw-tailing ownership rit et

the respondent in e.ny 11roperty ~ n

It trther noted ht the averronts in the plaint 1n 08.No.172/.

or 1975' do not speeitv who 1s the own;er of the serviant tenemeat ..

vboa.e ripts were curtailed. by the USf3J' cia:t.med 01' the appe-

l.lru.1.-ts.the oral. evidence 1n the ease 't#lS thereafter cons±sered.The rejection of the evidence of tie det'endante1n o.s .No.16? ot 197, was dla~cterteed by' the court below '1a \he tollov:iag_ ~:

'"l'h:e lover court r,es rightly dis~rded ibe n:lctence of tb1$ v1taess. J!b:11.$

there 1s no acceptabl.e evidence to PJOW

-uat tb• appelle'9 an4 their predecetor- r'

,.,,

•in-interest bad been using thethodU. eontirl\lously' foi- the statutojy'period 1-o die.in water hem the app•'l1ants property.

6. In respect of the concurrent findings ot ta.ctso entered bY the ocurts bel.o"~ on t..1le a:ppreoiation •t m.dc•in the case. it cc,nnot bn sri(£. that there has been an, eJ'IIC•nous +proct or misdirection relating to the legal prineieles.the apprecia.tion of the evidence is .a1so prop..erj andcorseet. svan regard to thee circumstances, there islittJ.e scopef'or inter.t'eringi.;ith the concurrent ftntliage /fare his court,\

\

7. c,rµnsel. for the appellants &tl'98sed th9.t aaregards the cu1t 0.S .4lo.167 of 1975' the plaintiff was obllp4,,\..to prove bis· ti\.le and possession...nuts Apart hem .producdll&or the: tit1e of the pl#.int:iff therein ~d of the pOSlle.ldoa'\reliet by \.1ay of injunction eo'Uld not be grated to the pla1n\-1ff, even 1:r it be that o.s.•Mo.172 ot 197; u dialld.S$ed. on th•ground that- an esemeths not been establfahed as reqaiftd.

/

by law,It mey at first sight appear to be an attractiveargent, However, the courts below eotu.d not bd found faul\with, in tbe approach \hffY •• to the· queeUoaa ta Ille \'we•suits. !b.e ma.in controversy centred JteUD4 the plea of •e-'.'•I'aent. ~(; title to the frtiperty W%S not the subJeet••"-of contl.'evers,-.Ha'Yina regard to '1le p1ea and eleim so mdeAt e matter of fact, it is seen that the parti.es sve pn,oee•d.e4 on the basis tat the pla:1.ntitf in o.6.llo.16? of 1975 d1d-bLVe title ~ the prop.e.rt:f end posssession thereof,Notwithstanding the title to,nd possession over,the property itwould have been open to the defendants to pleedand prove anestabll$hed Qaliement. It was,. that they attempted, but faU..4.1'be eanau.rrent filid.1'0.is on that a:.spect are not open \o ater-.rerenoe J.n second appeal, the question relflting to the tit1eand possessiQG of the property does not ari.Se for aalidaat1cllin the second 8peel, Ihe 2ea has been raised to!' tbe nrst-.time in second appeal appaNlltlY dne to counsel•e 1nd'u.St1711ere. lt -,., howeTer, be mud tbat '1te ~end80is8 1Bo.a.ao.16? o~ 197S ~•»-ift.eall7 aditted that the pl.a•.int1ft therein hd tit2e to, and possession of, the property f The to1lowing is the clcr and specific statements as conta1ne4 :1n tbe judgment of the lover appellate O()Ul't1

"AS the api,ellants do not disJ>ute the'respondents rightto or poa•••.f.oD owr.·the pl.nin~roperty ill o.s..no.167 o£ 1975the lover court was right 1n grant~ aninjunction ss pxeye@ for in that suit,"

couasel bare to diaow such & crucial sta\elllll'I •• on ba»lf~ tlll1 h1B eliente in the .court. belew •. -Jven othd"'U.,._ as1n<l1•M4 •!'l..ier, the entire proeeedinP Y.1.11 o1•~ •bent--..·.'pl&iat.that the right to, or possession ot. the/property 1n o.s./Ho.167 ot 1975, ot tbe plair.titt there~ had not 'been \hesub3eet-tter of controversy at all11'1 view of tise cir-OW1Steaoes I do not find any su.'bstanoa 1rl tbe contenUon 8,.These secou.d appeal• have been filed afte'r theamendmetlt ot the Code or C1T1l Proce<lure. 1Eerfernce 1s-std.callecl for on1Y when 1\ finds- that th eourts below :ttafl goneI\•wrong Oil subs'8nti41 ctUe&tiGnS of la,r. -A obaerffd ear11u,appreciation of evidence, the al1ct1onat the legel pr 1appear to be perteAl.7 1aga1 aad eorrect. a.we is • effff",much leP: e:a, erl"Or sf law, warranting interferenee #

"VMt•e..aeCOA4 appeals. ..,. . are, tne,etore. 41SJ!d.S"4 wi.tleo•••

IC.R.P. No.3360 at 1978.

---,.tfhis :revision is direeted ag&1nst. \he order of ...,. --9eott?t below in E.P.l!o.219 or 1977 by which 1.t declillG4 to.~"111:e a der order 21 :l!W.e 32, e.p.c. by,../,. o,f Bll'ftllilsnd detention- ot ju~gment•df:btors 1 and '4-, for vio:J.&t1ng-t2o orders of 1njunction issued in that suit. It was s1leg0dtit'$:\ the judgment-debtors - defendants 1 acd It- .. bad oonet-.rt1eted a 'tbodu* along -W!.\lt the northern poni• d \lie fl.a•int propert,' on thenight of 7•-?--1977tmd they were lhbl.•~be. pro.ceea.deda ±fosr such dis,obe,,di,eria4cer£g,d»decroe passed.a bftotbe.C()U%'t.i , I'a2ia, eantended bat they had not dane 4ny acts ss stated 4#the exeeu.\it..ln petition,I'he court belo; eadrorted to tbe•~-evidea of P.WS.2 and 3 WM bad gj..... •df.nce rega:rdii'lg V...'''alleged opening of the thod· PM3 was the plaintiff'8

!

,

oa inU-Uon about tb.e aetJ..vity- or tae1 ~• be ftl8M4to th&Sj)O\ and noticed aboUt 10 to 30 penou inollldml de-fendats 1 and a..BA bas stated that defendants1 aa4 lt-were ,oina aJ.ong -with the pes-sou who bli 10 ,gathered antiridul&:in& 11-l the constr·uction activities o~ ta• t '1'actdll• •P,.3 cold give v-.±&eneo only a.bout the J,a':rge, Dldl'ber ofto th&Sj)O\ and noticed aboUt 10 to 30 penou inollldml de-fendats 1 and a..BA bas stated that defendants1 aa4 lt-were ,oina aJ.ong -with the pes-sou who bli 10 ,gathered antiridul&:in& 11-l the constr·uction activities o~ ta• t '1'actdll• •P,.3 cold give v-.±&eneo only a.bout the J,a':rge, Dldl'ber of•persons numbering about 50 an&aging dn the construction ot ten&lnt 91&mined es1).w • ·1gaff 911';1.denee tbtlt he bad not par-tic±pated in the construction sf the • tbodll'. Ile appeti'9 to-tic±pated in the construction sf the • tbodll'. Ile appeti'9 to-..--procb.lced a certificate to the a.ffect that on 7--71977 ho''was on office duty. iZxt.135 is the ce:rtit'iefJ.te. vn an appze-aiation of the evidence he court below 1alt t there wasno re1:u1ble evider:.ae to show that deten&.nts· 1 and t,. baff aetad.1n violation of the deeree. In suppc;,rt or 1ts eonelusion itreferred to the circumstance that P.w.3 ba4 not ftled a pe•e"no re1:u1ble evider:.ae to show that deten&.nts· 1 and t,. baff aetad.1n violation of the deeree. In suppc;,rt or 1ts eonelusion itreferred to the circumstance that P.w.3 ba4 not ftled a pe•e"tion immediately there?ftersn reportetohpoAe-ording to the court belmt, even 1:f 1t 1s roved tht therewas a constmcticn and that the construction of the •tbofta•ffif17 benefit the d&fendent• tbat. 1rl8S not sufficient ~c, upbol.4was a constmcticn and that the construction of the •tbofta•ffif17 benefit the d&fendent• tbat. 1rl8S not sufficient ~c, upbol.4that they have aetually violated the 1njnct±on j ,

j

,

11. The criticism of the evidence of FM.2 by thecou1-t below is not justified.n:e rias given evid.ea• a'boUt.biS atfv1ne seen de:fend..tmts t a»,d lt among the large mamberof peso»is eng:ed in the construetton activities.The mereto t11~ the petition immediately, is noground to cU.abeU..,.east.Ghis version.The tact tnat he eeu±d- move tae oust tor n-"lief, even -without repol'"ttng t,r,.e l'fl.\tter to the pOliee camot.

the eonstrueti.on activities. It may be noted ti.la\ the cou.nbel.cw •• not concerned with e.nr ~ proceedinl but,at:,out theI aetion to be tak• •cler Oriel" 21 ma1e 32, G•P.c•stioUldot course, the judgment-debtors Jdu,ad::it/'hflW ~ d:1Jt-obeyed the decree tor attracting the actiOn' under tlJlt,provision.l f 1arp numtter ot persona bl4 co11ected together,and 1f defcdants1 sndwere among them, hving Nt&!'da just mftrenee that in the circumstances detendian'8 1 and It,were viifully disobeying the order cf the dec:.ee of thecollrt,• However, even i.f tru,.s cotu·t eomeS to a oone.blsicm.

III

._ 10 .....

that the court below did not properly evaluate 2l the cir-;eumstances, that my not be a good isround ror inter.fering1:n the teuated revision1 jurisdiction of this court..'here is als the further fct that the 1st defendant head produeeed Rat.B5 certificate which me, prims faeie, justify the••-•• auuo:pU.:.0 that he was on duty on 7--7--1977. Ir\b.Iese oireumstanceia, 1r tru;. oourt below did not feel 3Ut1fte41n -accepting the evidenee of p.ws.2· and J, tbaat course, even lt\1.t be felt to be net quite correct, 1S not amenable to correct..ion in revisional, juris.diction. The 1st defendnt who is a res-pona1b1• ottid$1 of the Blectl"icity, Board should heve takenrobservance of the decrees and orders of the court, for, theywhoetto ignoreoviolate tham,I.- doIsoathe ir\ perI need not di.lat. OJ1 this aspect further, I had discussed at saileo.gth about the proper e.pproaeh that s-.bould •• Ne taken1n a natter 11e this, so that a court ot law sboU.14 aot ftDd.itself helpless me.rely fot the NUcD thet there u • oonetu•sift l)JOOf ~de. abadov ot doubt as ill a crindnal case.!heproot required