No. 11 of 1980 · Kerala High Court

:ilJ:nl Second respondent is recorded· as the legal icprcscntative of the deceased first respondelt at the risk of appellants as er order dt. 3-2-8i on memo e.1.505/81 dated 29-1--1981. By Advs./ s.i.G..Panic«er,k.S,Radhakn isbna» i..Balakrishnan & 1.B.M0lan iumr. _ ________________..., c.R.±.No.3360/ 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 of Dcvcsadanathil fro'.11 Kollalivadakketbil, Kutta11.peroor i\:;.uri, hlonn~r village. (aied) Legal reprcsentativef impleacled. Acldl.P2.- .Cncllamma J.narKiavalli .Amma of Dcvisa·danathil from Kollelivadakettil, Kuttamperoor Muri, Mormar villogc • .,---.. Addl.,t. is ipleaded as the legal representative of de~eascd 1st petitioner vide order dated 17-12-1981 on Cir.1832/81. ,• . By Advs./s..G.±.±anicker,i.S.Balakristnan & - K. S • ld hakri SUiltlf) • . gyondgnt s/ Ju@gent debtors/Defendants 1. Gccvo.rgLcsc Samuel of Kalceckal Vecttil, Kuttamperoor

SosaJ11ma of do. do. Muri, .i.Vannar village. 1 ' l,.et>rrected) - The cause title of t ii.c 2nd respond cut is corrected ' I t1s Soosamma i nstcad ~'.f Sosor.<tina as per the order dated 9-8-1979 on CM.10865/79. / I . ------.c:.,-----~-------.=--------~-- ./ I a: ~(rva;r-ghe, sc l~l¼~k.tjiiimo [' . 7 ' ;&av~·sitcii-~e .John.- - ·i:- -- - e I l of do. d-d~ :_.-' _ files~ seeond appeals ttoo c.n. P~ imv:1-.,.,_•.._,.. kmasigrass been heard om 3-3--1982,the court:on tHe ,, ll8J)le_ ·ia,- ,ck!iivied the ro11owing@% ;;r": .... •. \ . . - . • ~:~---- ± \ -. . f···· :~t::_;;-,,_ ·:;:,-;, :·.:\.•.-~·....:.-.-.·.:····.·....--., ·:-, ..-.:_...-.,... -- ·:'::_. :,\;. : ~ ·- ,_ . . . < .. '. C - / i _, r I ,' / .\ ", ' .• se> -.-tom% 'I. ·' ' .A. Nos.11 nl28 . Yr 1980 0.R. .F. No.. 3360 f 1918. a . 8A. Hos.11 and 28 of 1980. - --- . 111ese appeal• oan be disposed of 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 \ . ' -

0.°.No.172 of 1975, These suits were tried together. Defend- • ;I, ant.s Nos. 1 to lt- in 0. No.167 0£ 1975 re the p1int1 +fs tn 0 .8.R0.172 0£ 1975. Apart from the J)ltd.nt:U"f' in f:\ .s .Ne.167 of 197, tnree other pe-rsons had also ,omed as d.Bfendtitnts in

0.8.No172 of 1975

2. 0. ..No.167 r,t 191; •• ftl,.ed. tor a penuan•• - .,,_ in, junction restraining the defendants from trespass ing into /. therein oontended tbat there was a •tbcdtl' a.nd that the . ~ . . . , tbodu.- ws used ~time immemoriaJ. for dre.1nil'ig the ·water - h'oll the prop0rty and that they head aeq\11red an ••emenl in respect thereof - I

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 · :ft 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 Revere Oivisionul. Officer, th$ pc.,llce a.dlcm bre!ll !\'.t,d otb• tacts. the trial curt entered a fudng that the defen&uts have tailed to prove that tbey' had a right of esement for the ' . pis int schedule rperty. Te tr1al court as psrtiu3Arly . . ipr=seed y the 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 aa ' TIe tr1a1 ourt also noted tint there was no ss tht the :ln q11est1on, was a public waler __,al.- tb\Jltt • a •tbo"1' (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

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$.1t,1on oz easeJaeDt lad beea «&plained b7 the lover appellate· court in pampepb-7 of its judgent. After adverting to tie pleadings in the case ·- . the court bc,J.ow oosei'Jied: RFJom these averments it is clear ~hat the right of drining out water. 18 not elFimed to have been exercised by tb.e appellants w.itb the cons eiousn.ss tbftt tht'eir uer was_ cw-tailing ownership ri~t et the respondent in e.ny 11roperty ~ n It trther noted ht the averronts in the plaint 1n 08. No.172 . or 1975' do not speeitv who 1s the own; er of the serviant tenemeat . / . vboa.e ripts were curtailed. by the USf3J' cia:t.med 01' the appe l.lru.1.-ts. the oral. evidence 1n the ease 't#lS thereafter cons±sered. The rejection of the evidence of tie det'endante 1n o.s .No.16? ot 197, was dla~cterteed by' the court below ' 1a \he tollov:iag_ ~: V '"l'h:e lover court r,es rightly dis~rded ibe n:lctence of tb1$ v1taess. J!b:11.$ there 1s no acceptabl.e evidence to PJOW -uat tb• appelle'9 an4 their predecetor- •in-interest bad been using the thodU. eontirl\lously' foi- the statutojy' period 1-o die .in water hem the app• l1ant's property. r'

In respect of the concurrent findings ot ta.ct so 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 prineie les. the appreciation of the evidence is .a1so proper and .. j . corseet. svan regard to thee circumstances, there is littJ.e scope f'or inter.t'ering i.;ith the concurrent ftntliage / fare his court, \

c,rµnsel. for the appellants &tl'98sed th9.t aa \ regards 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$ed. on th• ground that- an esemet hs not been establfahed as reqaiftd. by law, It mey at first sight appear to be an attractive argent, However, the courts below eotu.d not bd found faul\ with, in tbe approach \hffY • • to the· queeUoaa ta Ille \'we suits. !b.e ma.in controversy centred JteUD4 the plea of ••e- aent. ~(; title to the frtiperty W%S not the subJeet••"- ' I . ' • ' of contl.'evers,-. Ha'Yina regard to '1le p1ea and eleim so mde At e matter of fact, it is seen that the parti.es sve pn, oee• d.e4 on the basis tat the pla:1.ntitf in o.6.llo.16? of 1975 d1d bLVe title ~ the prop.e.rt:f end posssession thereof, Notwith standing the title to, nd possession over, the property it would have been open to the defendants to pleedand prove an establl$hed Qaliement.

The criticism of the evidence of FM.2 by the cou1-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 mamber of peso»is eng:ed in the construetton activities. The mere to t11~ the petition immediately, is no east.G " his 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. ground to cU.abeU..,. the eonstrueti.on activities. It may be noted ti.la\ the cou.n bel.cw •• not concerned with e.nr ~ proceedinl but, at:,out the I a etion to be tak• •cler Oriel" 21 ma1e 32, G • P.c • ot course, the judgment-debtors Jdu, ad::it/'hflW ~ d:1Jt- stioUld obeyed the decree tor attracting the actiOn under tlJlt, ' provision. l f 1arp numtter ot persona bl4 co11ected together, and 1f defcdants 1 snd were among them, hving Nt&!'d a just mftrenee that in the circumstances detendian'8 1 and It, were vii fully disobeying the order cf the dec:.ee of the collrt,• However, even i.f tru,.s cotu·t eomeS to a oone.blsicm. j I ._ 10 ..... that the court below did not properly evaluate 2l the cir- ; eumstances, that my not be a good is round ror inter.fering 1:n the teuated revision1 jurisdiction of this court.. 'here is als the further fct that the 1st defendant head produe eed Rat.B5 certificate which me, prims faeie, justify the ••--•• auuo:pU.:.0 that he was on duty on 7--7--1977. I r \b.ese oireumstanceia, 1r tru;. oourt below did not feel 3Ut1fte4 I 1n -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 jurisdiction. The 1st defendnt who is a res- . , pona1b1• ottid$1 of the Blectl"icity, Board should heve taken r observance of the decrees and orders of the court, for, they et to ignore o vi o la te tham, do so a I . - I th e ir per \ I need not di.lat. OJ1 this aspect further, I had discussed at sai leo.gth about the proper e.pproaeh that s.boul d •• Ne taken 1n a natter 11e this, so that a court ot law sboU.14 aot ftDd. itself helpless merely fot the NUcD thet there u • oonetu• . sift l)JOOf ~de. abadov ot doubt as ill a crindnal case. !he proot required I I I V