MARIYAMMA Vs. SERIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 14/7/2009, in A.S. No. 72/2005 on the file of Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and the judgment dtd. 6/4/2005 in O.S. No. 253/2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the first defendant and the legal heirs of second defendant came up with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for declaration of title over immovable property, recovery of possession and enjoyment. The defendants contested the suit disputing the title of plaintiffs over the immovable property. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs have got title over the immovable property scheduled in the plaint and granted a decree of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the first defendant and the legal heirs of the second defendant came up with this second appeal mainly on the reason that the decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are null and void in view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in East India Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. . ((1991) 3 SCC 230 : AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1094) and by a Full Bench of this court in Kuruvilla Abraham v. John (1995 (1) KLT 161). The contention is that the building is situated in a place wherein Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short 'the Kerala Act') made applicable and that the Civil Court is incompetent due to lack of jurisdiction to deal with the matter.