The petition filed by Kerala Sarpapakavu Samrakshana Samithi, a registered trust dedicated to protecting serpent groves (sarpakavus) in Kerala, along with its Secretary, challenges rampant destruction of sacred groves across the state. The petition contends serpent groves are ecological havens hosting diverse flora and fauna and hold traditional sacred significance as abodes of snakes, warranting protection under law. The petition seeks a mandamus to treat serpent groves as temples and extend the protections and benefits available to temples under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to serpent groves. The petitioners argue that biodiversity preservation and ecological balance justify judicial intervention. The State counters that mandamus to redefine temple status involves policy decisions and is not appropriate for a writ, but highlights protective steps under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Kerala Biodiversity Rules, 2008, including actions by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board, Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs), and forest authorities, with financial subsidies for sacred groves. The court acknowledges the ecological importance and the destruction of sacred groves and, invoking Article 226 and the public trust doctrine, issues directions aimed at safeguarding these ecosystems: constituting BMCs, preparing Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers, notifying serpent groves as Biodiversity Heritage Sites, and framing compensation/rehabilitation schemes while preserving groves pending implementation.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Subin Raj, the first accused in SC No. 1041/2022 before the Special Court (Additional Sessions Court III), Palakkad, arising from Crime No. 24/2022 of the Palakkad Excise Range Office. The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.09.2022 in CRMC 2586/2022 (Sessions Court, Palakkad) denying regular bail in connection with alleged offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges that on 06.05.2022, accused 1 and 2 were found in possession of 20.5 kg of ganja near a railway foot over bridge in Palakkad, leading to seizure and registration of the case. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the contraband was recovered separately and only subsequently weighed together, suggesting the quantity would be intermediate if weighed separately; therefore bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor contends that the contraband amounts to a commercial quantity, triggering the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes bail conditional on meeting two tests: (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) the accused will not commit an offence while on bail. The court relies on precedents to interpret “reasonable grounds” and holds that the quantity here is a commercial quantity. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed and the accused remains in custody.
The Kerala High Court heard Crl.A. No. 2200 of 2011 challenging the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant alleged that he lent Rs. 2,00,000 to his brother, the first respondent, who issued Ext P1 cheque in discharge of the debt; the cheque was dishonoured for “payment stopped by the drawer.” After service of Ext P4 statutory notice, Ext P7 reply denied liability. The trial court acquitted the first respondent. On appeal, the court examined whether the defence could be proved by affidavits under Section 145 NI Act, and whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The court found that defence witnesses were allowed to file affidavits with cross‑examination, but the appeal challenged this procedure only at the appellate stage, which the court held untenable under CrPC Section 465. The appellant invoked Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore and Tomy T.J. v. State of Kerala to challenge the admissibility of affidavits and the interpretation of Section 138 when funds were available (ext D1) but the Will (Ext P5) and stop payment (Ext D2) cast doubt on enforceable debt. The High Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s view that the debt was not legally enforceable, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. It emphasized caution in appellate interference with acquittals and applied established precedents on acquittal reviews and evidentiary issues.
This batch of connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases before the Kerala High Court challenges the cognizance and proceedings in CC No.498/2021, arising from a private complaint alleging offences under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO & T Act), linked to two liver transplant cases involving brain-death certification at a private hospital (ASTER Medcity) and related institutions. The petitions argue that cognizance was taken without proper pre-cognizance compliance (Section 22 TOHO & T Act) and without sanction under Section 197 CrPC in respect of government doctors (empanelled experts) who participated in brain-death certification. They attack the legitimacy of the process, including the brain-death certification, the panel of experts, and the timing of organ removal, contending that the proceedings were a result of private malice and non-compliance with statutory procedures. The court undertook a pre-cognizance examination of maintainability, the mandatory notice requirements, and the necessity of governmental sanction, and ultimately held that the complaints and cognizance were to be quashed along with further proceedings in CC 498/2021, directing quashing of the criminal proceedings in the connected matters. The decision emphasizes special protections, expert involvement, and the need for careful scrutiny before prosecuting medical professionals under TOHO & T Act.
Raja lekshmi P., a ward member of Kuzhithalachal, Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat in Vellayani, challenged Ext.P17 (dated 24.02.2023) of the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, which excluded Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards from the Dikkubali Nirapara list of Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple during Kaliyoottu. She had earlier obtained relief in W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2023 (Ext.P14, 17.02.2023), leading to inclusion of the two wards in Ext.P15; Ext.P17 reversed that inclusion. The 3rd respondent relied on a report (22.03.2023) stating those wards lie outside the traditional boundary. Interim orders, counter-affidavits, and documentary exhibits were placed on record; seven respondents originally, and eight to twelve as additional respondents (impleaded) via I.A. No.1 of 2023. The petition argues the boundary is fixed by centuries-old practice and that Ext.P17 is arbitrary, illegal, and a fraud on court. The respondents contend boundary limits are fixed by tradition, and Nirapara must be confined to those limits; the 2020 ROC directive and 2022 Devaprasnam support the boundary. The court, citing Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala (2023/KER/8852), upheld the Board’s duty to ensure traditional rites and to assist temple functioning and held that Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila fall outside the accepted boundary; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
W.P.(Crl.) No.596 of 2022 Shabna Abdulla, the petitioner in a COFEPOSA-related writ petition under Article 226, challenges Ext.P8 detention order (Section 3(1) COFEPOSA) and the Ext.P19 confirmation order (Section 8(f) read with Section 10) detaining Sri Abdul Raoof for a year. The detention stems from the 2021 smuggling case where contraband gold was recovered from unaccompanied baggage; co-accused including the detenu’s father-in-law and brother were involved, and statements were recorded by DRI/CEIB under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner contends that subjective satisfaction is vitiated for lack of production of all relevant documents, that there was inordinate delay in execution which severed the live link between the grounds and detention, that show-cause and other representations were not properly placed before the Advisory Board, and that denial of materials violated Articles 14, 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. The respondents counter that all relevant documents were considered, that the detaining authority acted on necessary and sufficient materials, and that the delay was largely due to the detenu’s absconding and travel abroad. The court examines the constitutional safeguards, the duty to place material before the Detaining Authority and the Advisory Board, the absconder doctrine, and case-law on supply of documents during representation. Ultimately, it holds that the grounds of detention were adequately supported and the petition is dismissed, upholding the detention and its confirmation.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022 and the prospectus for Plus One admissions for 2022-23, which prescribe management quota, community quota, and merit-based admissions in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools. The petitioners (school Managers) contend that reducing management quota to 20% and creating a 10% community quota is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. They rely on long-settled constitutional principles and prior judgments (including Division Bench decisions) that no quota for management or caste/community should override merit and that the State cannot reserve seats in private aided institutions. The State asserts this is a valid policy aimed at correcting historical anomalies and ensuring merit-based admissions through CAP (Centralized Allotment Process). The judgment systematically reviews policy-making vs. judicial review and concludes that while the 20% management quota remains legally permissible, the 10% community quota is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 15. The court directs that the 10% community quota be struck down and that those seats be treated as open merit seats and filled through CAP, with admitted students unaffected where they have already been admitted under declarations. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, upholding the 20% management quota but negating the 10% community quota.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2604/2012) arising from OP(MV) No. 783/2000 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, for the death of Jayaprakash in a road accident on 01.03.2000. The appellants—Kunjumol (wife) and their children Kavitha and Chippy (minors)—along with the deceased’s parents, claimed a total compensation of Rs. 5,42,500 from the insurer and the lorry driver. The Tribunal held the driver negligent, rejected the contention that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, and awarded Rs. 3,50,000 with interest at 7.5% thereto. On appeal, the High Court examined multiple heads of compensation and relevant principles from Supreme Court judgments. It considered the deceased’s income, arguing that Rs. 4,000 claimed was more accurate than the Tribunal’s Rs. 2,400, and applied Pranay Sethi’s framework to add future prospects (40%), using a multiplier of 17 since the deceased was 27. It corrected personal expense deduction (from 1/3 to 1/4 given five dependents) and recalculated compensation. The Court also increased funeral, loss of estate, and granted loss of consortium to five dependents at Rs. 40,000 each, following Magma General and New India decisions. The appeal was allowed, enhancing the total award by Rs. 5,28,200 with directions on deposit, interest, and apportionment.
This judgment deals with MFA (Forest) No.144 of 2012 (Karala High Court, Ernakulam) arising from an application for declaration under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The applicants seek exemption under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) for 8 acres of land out of 11 acres in Re. Survey No.1186, Vellarimala, Vythiri taluk, Wayanad. The land was purchased in 1970-71 by Cheriyan Thomas and Jacob Thomas’s respective heirs/nominees and later acquired by the present applicants in 1993-1994. The State contends the disputed land forms a vested forest (VFC item No.22) in a 1990 notification and that the applicant’s possession is an encroachment, with no sustained cultivation or evidence satisfying the threefold test for exemption under the Vesting Act: a registered document, an intention to cultivate, and the owner not holding land beyond ceiling limits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal, on remand, found lack of discernible cultivation on the appointed day and failed proof on ceiling limits. The Division Bench’s earlier directions and precedents (State v. Pullangod Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd; Joseph v. State of Kerala) guided the Tribunal’s reassessment. The High Court upholds the Tribunal’s conclusions and dismisses the appeal with costs, affirming no exemption for the 8 acres.
WP(C) Nos.12551/2023, 12601/2023, 12668/2023 and 12763/2023 The four writ petitions challenge the Maradu Municipality’s decision not to renew building permits for residential construction on properties within the Cochin Central City Structural Plan (CCCSP) zones. Petitioners Raj Mathew, Harish K.K., Nex P.A., and Sibin Vincent had obtained building permits prior to 2017 and commenced construction. When renewal was sought, authorities refused, citing that the lands were Nilam (converted/ Paddy land) and that the CCCSP zones prohibited residential development or limited it to a smaller built-up area (300 sq m under the Agricultural Zone). Petitioners contend that the renewal cannot be denied solely on zoning grounds after construction has progressed, and that Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 cannot be invoked to bar renewal for permits issued before its introduction. The court notes relevant statutory orders, including GO (MS) No.143/07/LSGD (Cochin Central City Structural Plan) and the master plan provisions, and relies on previous Kerala HC decisions (Cheranalloor GP v. Joe Thattil; W.P.(C) Nos. 39727/2022; 19197/2020; 16737/2021) which favored renewal where the land is Nilam but permits were granted earlier. The judgment ultimately disposes of all petitions by directing renewal of the building permits without regard to zoning, provided the petitioners meet eligibility, with fresh orders to be issued within a month.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) filed by the claimant, K.P. Abdul Rahim, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery’s award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in O.P.(MV)No.1301 of 2006 for injuries sustained in a bicycle accident on 10.06.2006. The minor claimant’s majority was later declared by an order in IA 4087/2011 dated 22.08.2011. The Tribunal held the motorcycle rider negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.2,45,100 with 8% interest from the petition date and proportionate costs. The insurer contended lack of intimation of the accident and non-production of vehicle documents and argued the compensation claimed was excessive, while the respondents 1 and 2 did not contest. On appeal, the High Court examined if the compensation could be enhanced under Section 173, recalling State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi to emphasize “just compensation” and the non-arithmetic, equitable approach to damages. The Court re-evaluated heads of damage: increasing loss of amenities to Rs.40,000 (from Rs.15,000), adding Rs.2,500 toward medical/transportation, and increasing permanent disability to Rs.2,52,000 (from Rs.72,000), plus Rs.15,000 for disfiguration/loss of marriage prospects, totaling an additional Rs.2,22,500 with 8% interest. The insurer was directed to satisfy this enhanced amount within two months, with deductions for court fees and any claimant liability.
This writ petition challenges whether GST must be paid at applicable rates on bills for a government contract, despite tender terms that direct the bidder to quote rates exclusive of GST and that GST be paid separately. The petitioner, the successful bidder, was awarded a contract for a project under Exts. P1 and P4; it submitted partial bills from 2020 onward. The first bill was verified but held for GST clarification, and subsequent bills were processed without admitting GST. The respondents argued that GST or any tax must be payable by the contractor as per Exts. P1 and P2 clauses, and that Ext.P17 circulars require GST to be the contractor’s responsibility and not to be claimed from the government. The petitioner relied on CA George v. State of Kerala (2019 (4) KLT online 3268) and Sebastian Jose v. State of Kerala (2021 (5) KLT 445), as well as WA No.1710 of 2021, to contend that taxes should be dealt with in terms of tender and government rules. The Court noted these authorities and observed that Exts. P16 and P17 and the cited judgments necessitate reconsideration. It disposed the matter with a direction to respondents 1 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s request for payment of GST at applicable rates on all bills, taking into account Exts. P16, P17 and the judgments, after hearing, within one month.
The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC, entertained a petition by accused Nos. 1 and 2 seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 340/2019 (JMFC, Varkala) arising from Crime No. 848/2016 of Varkala Police Station. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC, based on an alleged impersonation to cheat while the defacto complainant and his brother allegedly facilitated the registration of Sale Deed No. 557/1997. The petition argued that the parties have since settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the proceedings; affidavits from respondents supported this settlement. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, noting no other grave crimes against the petitioners and that the respondents stated no lasting grievances. The court reviewed the standard framework from State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, concluding that 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences with predominantly civil character when parties have resolved the dispute, subject to considerations like gravity, antecedents, and the public interest. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the proceedings in CC 340/2019 and the Final Report in Crime No. 848/2016 were quashed, bringing peace to the parties.
WA Nos. 729/2016, 978/2016, 1199/2016 & 1284/2016 These writ appeals arise from order(s) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The four appeals were heard together after the DRT’s 2015 decisions (DRT 11/2015 and 12/2015) filed by borrowers challenging sale proceedings conducted under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act and RDDBFI Act. The appellants-bank (State Bank of Travancore) contended that writ jurisdiction should not override an equally efficacious appellate remedy in the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, particularly since sale occurred in 2013 and subsequent appeals were disposed of in 2015; they also argued that the Recovery Officer could validly authorise a Recovery Inspector to conduct the sale under Rule 13 of the IT Act’s Second Schedule. The respondents argued that the sale and its proclamation violated statutory requirements and that the sale should be set aside for irregularities and lack of proper notice. The Kerala High Court, noting impleadment of legal heirs and service issues, proceeded to decide on legal questions, overruling objections to entertaining the writ petitions. It clarified that Mathew Varghese does not govern this RDDBFI scenario, but ultimately reaffirmed the original judgment setting aside the sale and directing that all proceedings after 12/04/2023 form part of the judgment. The bench affirmed the decision, treating it as a Division Bench judgment, and retained the sale as void.
This is a criminal revision petition (CrR.P. No. 24 of 2023) filed by Ayisha challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and the subsequent appellate upholding of that conviction. The case arose from a cheque dated 29.11.2013 for Rs. 3,00,000 issued by Ayisha in discharge of an alleged debt, leading to prosecution in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ottapalam, which convicted Ayisha and directed payment of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation under Cr.P.C. Section 357(3). The Sessions Court, in Crl.Appeal No.130/2019, modified the sentence to a three-month default imprisonment, directing execution if the compensation was not paid. The revision petition contends that the cheque was issued when a loan of Rs.50,000 was obtained and later discharged; it argues Ext.P11 (a document) is concocted and that the security/demand for more money and the handwritten details on the cheque were misused. It asserts that the trial and appellate courts failed to properly consider defence evidence and erroneously relied on presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, asserting the debt did not exist or was largely discharged. The High Court dismisses the revision, reiterating the settled law on the limited scope of revision and the permissibility of presumptions, while allowing a brief window for payment of compensation and directing further proceedings.
Cont.Case (C) No. 76 of 2020 This Contempt Case (Civil) No. 76 of 2020 is filed by petitioners 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 in WP(C) No. 36050 of 2016, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No. 36050/2016 and connected matters. The respondent is the 4th respondent, B. Andrew Pradhu, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Kochi. The petition contends that the EPFO failed to implement enhanced pension provisions following the 2014 amendment to the pension scheme (G.S.R. 609(E)) and related readjustments, including propagation of benefits to exempted establishments. The Supreme Court later clarified, in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022 and connected matters (reported as AIR 2022 SC 5634), that the 2014 amendment is legal and valid, and laid down directions on read‑downs, option periods, and implementation. The Kerala High Court references this apex Court decision, and, after hearing, holds that the entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in light of the 2022 judgment. The court indicates that the matter must be revisited by EPFO and that the contempt petition is to be closed, with the order remaining without prejudice to EPFO’s reconsideration of pension entitlement in accordance with the apex Court ruling. Annexures A1 and A2 are noted for the record.
The petitioner, M/S BPL Ltd., an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenges Ext.P5, a fresh assessment order dated 30.03.2016 for the year 2013-14, which assessed inter-State stock transfer turnover at ₹20,00,95,588/-, treating Form-F as supporting evidence for sale. Ext.P1 had determined the turnover at the same amount for lack of Form-F; Ext.P2 was a prior court judgment dated 18.12.2015 allowing Form-F to be produced within one week and directing a reassessment, with Form-F amounts subsequently furnished (₹15,52,67,558/-, Ext.P3 ₹66,05,067/-, Ext.P4 ₹46,88,916/-). Ext.P5, however, considered only the former amount and ignored Exts.P3 and P4. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 rectification; it asserted that Palakkad Unit was closed since 2013, with operations transferred to Bangalore, causing delay in obtaining Form-F for reasons beyond its control. The respondents contended that Form-F submissions after the extended period were not to be considered and relied on Section 6A and Rule 12(7) CST Rules, as well as Genpact India (SC) 1500 guidance on alternate remedies. The court held that belated Form-F submissions can be permitted if justified by sufficient cause and that the assessing authority must exercise its powers fairly and judiciously; Form-F declarations are not the same as sales. It quashed Ext.P5, granted one month to file additional Form-F declarations, and directed fresh assessment in accordance with law.
WP(C) Nos.21697 & 22433 of 2023 In two connected writ petitions—WP(C) Nos. 21697/2023 (Salmath A) and 22433/2023 (Haridasan V.P.)—the Kerala High Court heard common issues arising from Ext.P1, a decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, granting a fresh regular inter-district stage carriage permit on the Pulimutt–Parappanangadi route (via Beypore, BC Road, Cheruvannur, Feroke, Karuvanthiruthy, Chaliyam, Kadalundi Kadavu Palam, Aanangadi, Chettipadi and Parappanangadi Bridge) subject to conditions including concurrence from the sister RTA at Malappuram. The petitioners challenged the grant on the ground that Rule 171(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 requires prior concurrence of the other region before issuing such permits, and that Section 88(1) and other provisions do not override this requirement; they argued the remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not the exclusive recourse and Article 226 remains maintainable, as per Ratheesh v. R.T.A. The respondents contended that Ext.P1 is contingent on concurrence and that any non-conformity should be redressed under statutory remedies. The court held Ext.P1 to be in breach of Rule 171(2), distinguished Rule 171(2) from Section 88(1), and quashed the order, directing the Kozhikode RTA to reconsider the applicant’s permit afresh in the next meeting in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a month. The petitions were disposed of by a common judgment.
BA 9583/2021, 9594/2021, 10001/2021, 10008/2021, 10009/2021 This consolidated order concerns anticipatory bail applications filed by Muhammed Aslam A.M. @ Aslam, accused Nos. 10, 11, 14 and 15 in various Crime Branch cases arising from alleged fraudulent activities in the Karavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petition relates to allegations of forgery, misappropriation and siphoning off a substantial amount by accused Nos. 1–6, with the petitioner as a director accused of dereliction of duty and collusion. The prosecution contends that, as a board member, the petitioner was duty-bound to verify loan documents and oversee compliance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the bank’s bye-laws, and that his conduct violated those duties and the relevant statutory provisions. The petitioners’ counsel argues that the petitioner, aged about 63, has no personal involvement in the alleged crimes; reliance is placed on Anx. A4 remand material and Clause 31(a) of the bank bye-law describing the board’s responsibility to ensure fair functioning and supervisory control. The State counters that serious allegations against directors justify stringent scrutiny. After considering the nature of the offences and the petitioner’s role, the court, though noting the gravity of the allegations against others, grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, including a bond, regular appearance, non-interference with investigation, and prohibiting further criminal activity. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another to acknowledge police power for recoveries during bail proceedings.
The Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by Vimala, Geetha and Gireesh as legal representatives of their deceased father Balan. The suit property, originally part of Balan’s 31.33 cents, was partitioned in 1989 and the family later sold a portion of it. After Balan’s death in 1994, Ajith Associates (P) Ltd asserted title by sale deed No. 2973/1994, executed on 26.07.1994, and the respondents sought to eject the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim adverse possession and continued cultivation and remittance of taxes over the plaint schedule property, while the defendants contend that Ext.A2 sale deed transferred possession to them and extinguished the plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court dismissed the suit, followed by the first appellate court. In second appeal, the appellants argued that paragraphs 2 and 9 of the plaint relating to possession and adverse possession were not specifically denied, violating Order VIII Rule 2 CPC, and that the coconut climber’s testimony supported hostile, uninterrupted possession dating from 1994. The respondents argued that denial is specific and that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession, pointing to Ext.A2 and tax receipts. The High Court reviewed the evidence, observed that the possession and title remained with the defendant per Ext.A2, and concluded that the plaintiffs did not prove hostile, continuous possession. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
