POOVANKULAM SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY Vs. PUSHPAVENI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 436 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in this second appeal.

(2.) The above suit was one for declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is a public pond and that the defendants are causing obstruction to their user of the pond claiming that the same is part of their property. The first defendant in the suit had, in fact, filed an earlier suit as O.S. No.468 of 1991 for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining certain others from trespassing into the plaint schedule pond. The case set up by the first defendant in the said suit was that the suit property is part of the property obtained by her in terms of Ext.A2 surrender deed. It was also her case that she later obtained Ext.A3 purchase certificate in respect of the same. The suits were tried together, treating O.S. No.468 of 1991 as the lead case. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the trial court dismissed O.S.No.468 of 1991 and decreed O.S.No.436 of 1996. The first defendant challenged the decisions in the suits in two separate appeals. A.S. No.30 of 2001 was the appeal preferred against the decision in O.S. No.468 of 1991 and A.S. No.31 of 2001 was the appeal preferred against the decision in O.S. No.436 of 1996. In A.S. No. 30 of 2001, the first defendant produced a few additional documents along with I.A.No.1025 of 2002 invoking Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeals were later allowed by the appellate court placing reliance on the additional documents produced by the first defendant in A.S.No.30 of 2001. In terms of the common judgment, the appellate court decreed O.S. No. 468 of 1991 and dismissed O.S. No.436 of 1996. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court in dismissing their suit reversing the decision of the trial court. According to the plaintiffs, the procedure adopted by the appellate court in rendering the impugned judgment placing reliance on the documents produced in I.A.No.1025 of 2002 is illegal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondents.