C.RAJAN vs NANI AMMA

1
RSA No. 469 of 2026
CNR : KLHC010014802026

2026:KER:69654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TH
FRIDAY, THE 11 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 20TH BHADRA, 1948
RSA NO. 469 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2024 IN AS
NO.9 OF 2024 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA, ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMNET
AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2023 IN OS NO.215 OF 2016 OF MUNSIFF
COURT, VADAKARA.
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS (1, 2 & 4):

1 C. RAJAN
AGED 60 YEARS, PINNAKKANTAVIDA HOUSE,
KARTHIKAPPALLY AMSAM MUYIPRA DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673101.

2 NANU
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN,
OTHAYOTH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY AMSAM MUYIPRA DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673101.

3 NANU
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KELAPPAN,
MEETHALE PUTHALATH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY AMSAM
MUYIPRA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN – 673101.


BY ADVS.
SRI. C. BHASKARAN
SRI. ARJUN C BHASKAR
SRI. ATHUL KRISHNA A.
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAD K. A.

2
RSA No. 469 of 2026
CNR : KLHC010014802026

2026:KER:69654

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

NANI AMMA
AGED 74 YEARS, D/O KELU NAIR,
CHATHOTH THAZHA KUNIYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY AMSAM,
MUYIPRA DESAM VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN – 673101.

BY ADVS.
SRI. P. B. SUBRAMANYAN
SRI. SABU GEORGE
SRI. MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT. MEERA P.


THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3
RSA No. 469 of 2026
CNR : KLHC010014802026

2026:KER:69654

EASWARAN S., J.
--------------------------
RSA No. 469 of 2026
-------------------------
th
Dated this the 11 day of September, 2026

JUDGMENT

The defendants in a suit for mandatory injunction and damages
later converted into a suit for recovery of possession has come up in the
present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against
them.
2. The plaintiff initially filed a suit for mandatory injunction
and damages which is caused to his property due to the illegal action of
the defendants in demolishing the compound wall. Later, on filing of a
report by the Advocate Commissioner, it was evident that a portion of a
plaintiff’s property was encroached upon by the defendants and a new
road was cut open. Thus, the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor was also
sought for by the Advocate Commissioner. A report and plan were thus
produced before the Trial Court showing the extent of property which
was lost by the plaintiff for the purpose of cutting open of the new road.
The suit was instituted in the representative capacity. None other than
the defendants appeared and opposed the plea of the plaintiff. The
defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the Panchayat must be

4
RSA No. 469 of 2026
CNR : KLHC010014802026

2026:KER:69654

made a party for the purpose of deciding the suit. the Court rejected the
said plea. Based on the material evidence, the Court proceeded to
decree the suit based on Ext. C2 plan. On appeal, the same was
confirmed and hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard Sri. C. Bhaskaran, the learned Counsel for the
appellants and Sri. Balaji M. Krishnan, the learned Counsel for the
respondent.
4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the
Bar, this Court finds that the findings returned by the Courts below are
purely on appreciation of facts and evidence. According to the plaintiff,
she is entitled to recover plot A in Ext.C2 plan dated 02.02.2022. An
application for amendment was filed subsequent to the filing of Ext. C2
plan which was allowed on 11.07.2022. The defendant had no objection
to the same. That apart, the report of the Taluk Surveyor specifically
noted that plot ‘A’ shown in Ext. C2 plan trespassed by the defendants
and converted into road. On the eastern side of plot ‘A’ in Ext. C2 plan,
towards the boundary, there lies the remaining portion of a coconut
tree. Thus, the Court returned these findings accepting Ext. C2 plan
stating that the plaintiff is entitled to recover plot ‘A’ on the strength of
the title.

5
RSA No. 469 of 2026
CNR : KLHC010014802026

2026:KER:69654

5. What is projected before this Court is that in the absence of
the local authority, the suit cannot be decreed. it is also pointed that
since the claim for mandatory injunction and also the prayer for
damages were declined, the relief of recovery of possession ought to
have been declined by the Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid reason do
not constitute a substantial question of law warranting admission of this
appeal. Admittedly, the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the
plan submitted by the Surveyor shows that a portion of the plaintiff’s
property was trespassed upon and a new road was cut open. Since the
suit was in the representative capacity, it was up to the local authority
to object to the claim of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the appellants do not
have any locus standi to question the claim of the plaintiff.
Viewed in the above perspective, this Court sees no reason to take
a different view other than what is returned by the Courts below.
Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.


Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
Svn