JOSEPH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 82 of 1993 of the court of learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor is aggrieved by the dismissal of that suit as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Paravur in A.S. No. 134 of 1999. The appellant is the father of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent owed certain amount to the Forest Department concerning which, respondents 1 to 4, on the request of the 6th respondent initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Respondents 1 to 4 intended to proceed against the house and property belonging to the appellant and the movables kept therein. The appellant filed O.S. No. 111 of 1986 for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents 1 to 4 and 6 proceeding against the said properties. The immovable property and the house situated therein belonging to the appellant were described in the A schedule while the movables kept therein were described in the B schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 111 of 1986. The defendants in that suit contested the suit and the trial court granted a decree concerning the A schedule -immovable property and the house situated therein. So far as the B schedule -movables are concerned, the trial court refused to grant relief for the reason that the prayer made in O.S. No. 111 of 1986 was for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents 1 to 4 and 6 proceeding against the said movables but the evidence revealed that the said movables were already attached, taken possession and entrusted to the appellant on bond. That decision has become final. Thereafter appellant filed O.S. No. 82 of 1993 for a declaration that he is the owner of the movables described in the plaint schedule (the B schedule movables in O.S. No. 111 of 1986) and for a mandatory injunction directing respondents 1 to 4 to raise the attachment over the plaint schedule movables and deliver the same to the appellant.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 and 6 resisted the suit on various grounds. They claimed that the plaint schedule movables belonged to the 5th respondent (son of the appellant) who is also residing in the house belonging to the appellant. They further contended that the decision in O.S. No. 111 of 1986 would operate as res judicata so far as reliefs concerning the plaint schedule movables.

(3.) IN appeal also learned District Judge also took the view that the finding in O.S. No. 111 of 1986 as regards the plaint schedule movables would operate as res judicata. Dismissal of the suit was confirmed. Hence this Second Appeal.