RSA No.1060 of 2004 (Regular Second Appeal) – Thanka and others v. Kannā and Vimala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Justice Sathish Ninan
- Judgment Date
- 2020-02-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed; the decree for partition passed by the lower appellate court stands, and the preliminary decree for partition is upheld.
- Final Disposition
- Second Appeal dismissed; partition decree of the lower appellate court stands.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Thanka W/o Ponnan
- Leela W/o Do. In Do.
- Manikandan S/o Do. In Do. Do.
Respondents
- Kanna (died) W/o Velan
- Vimala W/o Appukuttan
- Radhakrishnan (minor, now major) S/o Ponnan
- Rajesh S/o Do. in Do.
- Thanka D/o Kunjakan
- Rajan S/o Velayudhan
- Pankajam D/o Do.
- Karthyani D/o Do.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer (Sr.)
- • Sri.Harish R. Menon
- • Sri.K.Jayakumar (Sr.)
- • Sri.P.B.Krishnan
- • Sri.M.K.Sreegesh
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri.S.Nithin Anchal
- • Sri.Rajesh SivaramanKutty
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Regular Second Appeal challenges a partition suit (OS 304/1997) that was dismissed by the Munsiff and later partially revived by the first appellate court, which passed a preliminary decree for partition declaring 1/4 share in favour of each branch of Kunjakan’s descendants. The defendants (appellants in this RSA) contend that Ponnan was the lessee and that the title in the property did not vest in Kunjakan, thus disputing the partition rights. The trial court’s finding of lack of evidence to establish Kunjakan as lessee was upheld by the first appellate court’s reversal, which concluded that Kunjakan held the original interest and that his heirs were entitled to partition. The High Court, hearing this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, scrutinized the evidence, including DW1’s cross-examination and Ext.A4 (panchayat assessment in the name of Kunjakan’s wife), and held that the materials supported the lower appellate court’s conclusion that Kunjakan was the original interest holder and that the eldest son, Ponnan, managed the property after Kunjakan’s death. The High Court reiterated that, in second appeals, where two inferences are possible, the inference of the lower appellate court should prevail, and that it should not substitute its own view. Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed, sustaining the partition decree.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- In a second appeal, where two inferences are possible, the inference of the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court.
- It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last court of fact; the appellate court should give satisfactory reasons for its conclusions; where two inferences are possible, the appellate court's inference binds the High Court in second appeal.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contend that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the leasehold right vested with Kunjakan, the common ancestor. They challenge the lower appellate court’s inference that Kunjakan was the original holder and argue that the documents, including Ext. A4, and the conduct of DW1, do not conclusively prove a lease in favor of Kunjakan’s branch. They emphasize the trial court’s finding of lack of evidence and contend that, under Section 100 CPC, the High Court should not substitute its own view when the first appellate court has given a satisfactory, permissible basis for its conclusion. The argument centers on whether the property was held by Kunjakan as original owner and whether partition rights vest in his descendants; they urge the High Court to re-evaluate the evidence and restore the trial court’s position or remit for fresh consideration.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the evidence, including DW1’s testimony and Ext.A4, establishes that Kunjakan was the original interest holder and that after his death his eldest son Ponnan managed the property, justifying a partition in favour of the branches. They rely on the lower appellate court’s view that Kunjakan’s possession and the conduct of the family support the claim of partition, and on the long-standing principle that the appellate court’s findings should be respected in second appeals when they are based on admissible evidence and satisfactory reasoning. They contend that the appellants’ challenge to the lower court’s inference is merely a permissible alternative view, which under settled law cannot overturn the lower appellate decision in a second appeal.”},
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal | (2002) 1 SCC 134 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that, in second appeals, the appellate court’s inference should bind the High Court when two inferences are possible. |
| Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors | (1999) 3 SCC 722 | Positive | Cited for the principle that the High Court should not substitute its own view but respect the lower appellate court’s conclusions when they are supported by evidence and law. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against RSA No.1060 of 2004 (Regular Second Appeal) – Thanka and others v. Kannā and Vimala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.