Kerala High Court
Vava vs Chellappan on 13 January, 2020
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941
RSA.No.390 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 67/2008 DATED 31-07-2010 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 58/2007 DATED 17-12-2007 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/PLANTIFF:
VAVA, AGED 71,
S/O.UMMINI, RESIDING AT PUTHENTHARAYIL,
KUDAVECHOOR KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
SRI. THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY
SRI. M.M. VINOD KUMAR
SRI. P. K. RAKESH KUMAR
SMT. M.A. RUXANA
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 & 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS:
1 CHELLAPPAN, AGED 70,
S/O.VAVA, KOCHUTHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA,
VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK -686 144.
2 SASIKUMAR, AGED 39,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KOCHUTHARAYIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR
KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK - 686 144.
3 MANOJ, AGED 37,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, DO. DO.
4 MOHANAN, AGED 52,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, RESIDING AT SYAM BHAVAN, KUDAVECHOOR
KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK - 686144.
5 SYAM, AGED 28, S/O.MOHANAN.
SYAM BHAVAN, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE,
VAIKOM TALUK -680 144.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L.
R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No.390 OF 2011 2
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant. The dispute involved is with respect to a 'Sarpakavu' (place of worship and abode of snake) over which it is alleged that one Kuriakose obtained Pattayam from whom he had purchased the same. Prima facie it appears so unfortunate that a purchase certificate is seen granted in respect of 'Sarpakavu'. There cannot be any cultivating tenancy over any 'Sarpakavu' and it is not capable of creating any tenancy or mortgage. It will not come under the purview of any tenancy recognized under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, it would fall under the exception incorporated under the said Act.
2. It is an admitted fact that the property is lying as a 'sarpakavu' with structures showing place of abode and worship of Sarpa, the snake. The present suit is one for injunction simplicitor based on a sale deed executed by the person who had obtained RSA.No.390 OF 2011 3 purchase certificate over the property overlooking the fact that the property is a place of abode and worship of snake and it is being maintained as such from time immemorial. There is no substantial prayer in the suit for declaration of the title which is under dispute. The question whether the said property is amenable for grant of a pattayam by virtue of provisions contained under the Kerala Land Reforms Act remains unattended and unanswered presumably on the reason that no suit was instituted with any substantial prayer for declaration of title. A blanket injunction cannot be granted when title is under dispute. No substantial question of law brought to the notice of this court in order to have an interference with the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court.
The appeal fails, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE