THRIKKULASEKHARAPURAM KSHETHRA UPADESAKA SAMITHI Vs. ANANDAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common judgment and decree dated 31.8.2017 in OS Nos.2389/2013 and 858/2014 of the Munsiff's court, Kodungallur (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the trial court'), which is confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Irinjalakuda (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the first appellate court') by judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020 in A.S.Nos.159/2017 and 161/2017 are under challenge before this Court in the second appeal. The trial court dismissed O.S.No. 2389/2013 and decreed O.S.No.858/2014. In OS No.858/2014, the trial court granted a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs. Further, the trial court granted a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs in convening their meetings in the building in the plaint schedule property and also from obstructing the day-to-day affairs of the first plaintiff therein. The first plaintiff in OS 858/2014 is Thrikkulasekharapuram NSS Karayogam No.2657 (herineafter referred to as 'the Karayogam') represented by its President. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are its President, its Secretary and its Treasurer respectively. The first defendant in OS No.858/2014 is Thrikkulaskharapuram Kshethra Upadesaka Samithi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samithi') represented by its President and the second defendant is its Secretary respectively. In OS 2389/2013, the plaintiff is the Samithi, represented by its Joint Secretary. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No.858/2014 are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.2389/2013 in their personal capacity along with defendants 3 to 15. The said suit was filed by the Samithi for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants (defendants 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in OS 858/2014) from causing obstruction to the activities of the samithi in the plaint schedule property or committing waste therein by way of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) Both suits were tried jointly by the trial court, treating OS 858/2014 as the leading case. The entire evidence was adduced in O.S.No.858/2014. The parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants according to their status in OS 858/2014 unless otherwise stated.

(3.) During the trial of the case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked as Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the plaintiffs. The Commission report and rough sketch were marked as Exts.C1 to C2(a). No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the defendants.