Kerala High Court
Kandaswami,(Died) (Legal Heirs ... vs Pazhani Ammal (Died) (Lhrs Recorded) on 9 February, 2026
2026:KER:14382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
RSA NO. 754 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2011 IN AS NO.9
OF 2003 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2002 IN OS NO.130 OF
1999 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 KANDASWAMI(DIED & LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED),
S/O AMBALAVANAM CHETTIAR,
RESIDING AT PANDAPULAKKIL THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD
AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
2 NARAYANAN,
S/O.AMBALAVANAM CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT
PANDAPULAKKIL THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM,
KOTTAPURAM DESOM,OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SMT.P.A.SHEEJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 PAZHANI AMMAL (DIED & LHRS RECORDED),
W/O.LATE PANDAPULAKKIL RAMAN MUTHALI, RESIDING AT
PANDAPULAKKIL THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM,
KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 518.
(RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL
HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER
DATED 25/10/2025 VIDE MEMO DATED 29/01/2019 IN
RSA 754/2011)
R.S.A.No.754/2011
2
2026:KER:14382
2 RAMALINGAN,
S/O.LATE RAMAN MUTHALI, RESIDING AT PANDAPULAKKIL
THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 518.
3 SARASWATHY,
D/O.LATE RAMAN MUTHALI, RESIDING AT PANDAPULAKKIL
THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 518.
4 CHELLAMMAL (DIED & LEGAL HEIRS RECORDED),
W/O.LATE AMBALAVANAN MUTHALI, RESIDING AT
PANDAPULAKKIL THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM,
KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 518.
(APPELLANT NO.2, RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE RECORDED
AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER
ORDER DATED 23.06.2023 IN MEMO DATED 29.01.2019.)
5 YASODA,
D/O.LATE AMBALAVANAN MUTHALI, RESIDING AT
PANDAPULAKKIL THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM,
KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 518.
6 PAZHANI AMMAL,
D/O.LATE AMBALAVANAN MUTHALI, RESIDING AT
PANDAPULAKKIL THERUVU, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM,
KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 518.
7 KUNHILAKSHMI,
W/O.LATE ANKAPPAN, D/O.KUNNUMTHIRUTHI LAKSHMANAN
CHETTIAR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, THACHAMPARA AMSOM AND
DESOM.
ADDL.R8 CHINNAMMAL,
W/O. THE LATE KANDASWAMY, PANTHAPULAKKAL THERUVU,
KOTTAPPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD,PIN-679 513.
ADDL.R9 K.SELVI,
D/O. THE LATE KANDASWAMI,PANTHAPULAKKAL
THERUVU,KOTTAPPURAM P.O.,SREEKRISHNAPURAM
(VIA),PALAKKAD,PIN-679 513.
ADDL.R10 JYOTHI K.,
D/O.LATE KANDASWAMI,PANTHAPULAKKAL
THERUVU,KOTTAPPURAM P.O.,SREEKRISHNAPURAM
(VIA),PALAKKAD,PIN-679 513.
R.S.A.No.754/2011
3
2026:KER:14382
ADDL.R11 SOORYAKALA K.,
D/O.LATE KANDASWAMI, THEKKETHARA,
ANJUMOORTHYMANGALAM P.O., ALATHUR (VIA),
PALAKKAD-PIN-678 682.
(LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1 ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R8 TO R11 AS PER ORDER DATED
23.06.2023 IN IA.3/2019)
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
ADV.K.RAVI(PARIYARATH)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.S.A.No.754/2011
4
2026:KER:14382
EASWARAN S., J.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.S.A No.754 OF 2011
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiffs is against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2.1. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are the wife and children of the brother of plaintiffs' father, who were granted permission to reside in the property having an extent of 27 cents covered by Ext.A1 assignment deed. Since it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendants were doing something contrary to the interest of the plaintiffs, a lawyers notice was issued in the year 1998. In reply to the lawyers notice, the defendants pleaded oral assignment of the property in the year 1950 for a consideration of Rs.60/- and a purchase certificate being obtained in the year 1976. According to the plaintiffs, the purchase certificate did not relate to the property in question and that it covered a larger extent of 40 cents and the boundaries mentioned in the purchase certificate also did R.S.A.No.754/2011 5 2026:KER:14382 not tally with Ext.A1 assignment deed.
2.2. The defendants, on the other hand, extensively relied on the purchase certificate and contended that they have absolute title over the property and in furtherance to the same, produced the Building Tax Assessment Register, which was marked through DW2 to show that the building in question was assessed in the name of the 1st defendant.
2.3. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendants have proved the oral assignment of the property and that in the absence of any challenge to Ext.B1 purchase certificate, a conclusiveness is attached to the same under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and there is a Bar for the civil court to go into the veracity of the purchase certificate issued by the land tribunal. The trial court further held that, no plausible explanation was forthcoming from the plaintiffs as regards the entries in Ext.B2. Moreover, the documentary evidence produced by the defendants would go contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiffs and would totally project a different case altogether. In such circumstances, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for and accordingly, dismissed the suit. R.S.A.No.754/2011 6
2026:KER:14382 2.4. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.9/2003 before the Additional District Court, Ottapalam, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 04.01.2011 and hence, the present appeal.
3. On 25.07.2011, this Court framed the following substantial question of law:
"When the defendants are setting up an oral assignment of the property in 1950 and the evidence of DW1 disprove the oral assignment, whether the courts below were justified in upholding the oral assignment in the light of the evidence on record"
4. Heard, Adv.T.Krishnanunni - learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Adv.Niveditha Prem V. and Adv.G.Sreekumar (Chelur) - learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Adv.T.Krishnanunni - learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that, since the property covered under Ext.A1 assignment deed and Ext.B1 purchase certificate is not the same, the trial court could not have dismissed the suit. It is further pointed out that the plaintiffs had a definite case that the purchase certificate was obtained behind their back and therefore, not binding on them and a specific averment with regard to the same was raised in the suit. It was further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that, the extent of property covered under Exts.A1 and B1 is R.S.A.No.754/2011 7 2026:KER:14382 totally different and that the name of the Jenmi in the Ext.B5 tax receipt being entirely different and that the name of the Jenmi being mentioned as a Devaswom, whereas the appellants claimed the right under Muthaliyattu Nair, the said discrepancy having not been clearly explained by the defendants, the trial court ought to have decreed the suit.
6. Per contra, Adv.G.Sreekumar (Chelur) - learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that a conclusiveness is attached to the certificate issued by the land tribunal and that there is a bar under Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for the civil court to go into the veracity of a certificate issued by the land tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sau. Saraswatibai Trimbak Gaikwad v. Damodhar D. Motiwale and Ors. [AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1568]. It is further pointed out that, even in the reply notice, a specific plea as regards the entitlement to hold the property based on the purchase certificate was raised and that the suit was filed only on 06.04.1999 and the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property only in the year 2002. If the plaintiffs had any genuine cause to be projected, by this time they would have certainly taken steps to verify the veracity of the purchase certificate issued by the land tribunal. In the light of the fact R.S.A.No.754/2011 8 2026:KER:14382 that the building in question was assessed in the name of the 1 st defendant and that there was no plausible explanation forthcoming from the plaintiffs as regards the entries in Ext.B2 Building Tax Assessment Register maintained by the Panchayat, both the courts below have correctly appreciated the facts and have dismissed the suit. Lastly, it is pointed out that the findings of the courts below are purely on appreciation of evidence and hence, this Court cannot interfere with the findings, unless it is found that the same is perverse.
7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the records of the case.
8. At the outset, this Court cannot but notice the fact that there is in fact a discrepancy in the extent of land covered by Ext.A1 assignment deed as well as Ext.B1 purchase certificate. But then, when the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property, he had clearly demarcated the plaint schedule property with reference to the measurements contained in the plaint schedule and also the four boundaries described in the plaint schedule.
9. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that there is a discrepancy in the western boundary of Ext.A1 and B1 and that by itself should have persuaded the courts R.S.A.No.754/2011 9 2026:KER:14382 below to discard Ext.B1 purchase certificate, cannot be accepted for the reason that the Advocate Commissioner has clearly stated that it is due to the passage of time the western boundary has now been changed to the panchayat road. Pertinently, there is no challenge to the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
10. That apart, the most crucial aspect in the present case is that the plaintiffs had no explanation as to the entries contained in Ext.B2 Building Tax Assessment Register. Even for a moment if it is assumed that the occupation of the defendants was permissive and the discrepancy in the extent of property covered by Exts.A1 and B1 is sufficient for the court to disbelieve Ext.B1, in the light of the uncontroverted facts as shown through Ext.B2 Building Tax Assessment Register that the building in question was assessed in the name of the 1 st defendant right from 1976 onwards, leaves an indication of the probable cause pleaded by the defendants.
11. On the other hand, in order to sustain the claim, the plaintiffs either ought to have summoned the record of proceedings of the land tribunal and ought to have demonstrated that the property covered under Ext.B1 is not in the respect of property covered by Ext.A1 and should have R.S.A.No.754/2011 10 2026:KER:14382 further taken steps to disprove the contents of Ext.B2 series. At any rate, since this impeccable evidence has not been disproved on the side of the plaintiffs, the discrepancy as now being pointed out assumes insignificance. In fact, there was no sufficient evidence before the courts below to prove the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants were in permissive occupation from the year 1990 onwards.
In such circumstances, this Court finds that the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below do not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Resultantly this Court answers the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal against the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S, JUDGE ACR