RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR versus PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANADHAN NADAR KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 01-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR
v.
PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANADHAN NADAR
KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4837 of 2022)
AUGUST 01, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
 Suit – Suit filed for putting up a boundary wall/fence on
land – Trial Court dismissed the suit, which was confirmed by the
First Appellate Court – High Court, however, allowed second appeal
and decreed the suit by upsetting concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below and holding that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 could
not have more than 10 cents of land as kudikidappukars and therefore,
the plaintiffs were entitled to put up the boundary as per the
Commissioner’s Plan and Report beyond the excess of 10 cents land
– Held: In an earlier round of litigation instituted by the original
landowner-predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, he was held to be
entitled to land to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents – Therefore, to
that extent only the plaintiffs can protect their possession by putting
up the boundary wall/fence and not beyond 2 acres and 35 cents –
What apparently weighed with the High Court was that defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars –
However, in a suit praying for putting up a boundary wall/fence
filed by the plaintiffs, the High Court in a second appeal could not
have given the findings that the defendants were entitled to only 10
cents as kudikidappukars – Judgment and decree passed by Trial
Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court, accordingly, restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In an earlier round of litigation instituted by the
original landowner - predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, being
O.S. No. 833 of 1961, he was held to be entitled to plaint A schedule
land to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents. Therefore, to that
extent only the plaintiffs can protect their possession by putting
up the boundary wall/fence and not beyond 2 acres and 35 cents.
[Para 4][834-D]
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 830
830
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
2. So far as the reliance placed upon the Commissioner’s
Report, which suggests that the plaintiffs were in possession of 2
acres and 77 cents is concerned, it is to be noted that plaintiffs
may be found to be in possession of 2 acres and 77 cents.
However, any possession beyond 2 acres and 35 cents can be
said to be unauthorized possession. [Para 5][834-H; 835-A]
3. The plaintiffs can protect their possession by putting up
the boundary wall/fence to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents
only. By praying to permit the plaintiffs to put up the boundary
wall/fence beyond 2 acres and 35 cents, the plaintiffs are asking
for the reliefs permitting them to retain the possession of land
beyond 2 acres and 35 cents, which otherwise they are not entitled
to in view of the specific findings recorded by the Civil Court in
the earlier round of litigation namely O.S. No. 833 of 1961. [Para
6][835-B]
4. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that what weighed with the High Court is
that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to only 10 cents as
kudikidappukars. However, in a suit praying for putting up a
boundary wall/fence filed by the plaintiffs, the High Court in a
second appeal could not have given the findings that the
defendants were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars.
The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court confirmed
by the First Appellate Court is ordered to be restored. [Paras 7,
8][835-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4837 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2018 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in S.A. No. 39 of 2000.
C.N. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Jose Abraham, M.P. Srivignesh, Lakshman Raja T., Mithun Kumar
N., Advs. for the Respondents.
RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR v. PARAMESWARAN NADAR
SATHYANANADHAN NADAR KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Second Appeal No. 39 of 2000 by which the High Court
has allowed the said second appeal and has set aside the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below and consequently has decreed
the Original Suit No. 665 of 1988, the original defendant No. 4 has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The fac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.