BAIL APPL. NO. 4444 OF 2025 Pradeep, the accused in Crime No. 14/2025 of Neyyattinkara Excise Range Office, petitioned for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the Kerala High Court. He is charged under Sections 55(i) and 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077, for allegedly possessing 18 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The petition contends that although the offences are serious, the petitioner has remained in custody since 20 March 2025 and deserves release under the well-settled bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting serious allegations and prior criminal antecedents. The Court analyzed the matter, noting the gravity of the offence but emphasizing the detainee's right to a fair trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), the court reaffirmed that bail should be granted where warranted. It also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260). On 3 April 2025, the High Court allowed the bail petition, directing release on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposing conditions including appearance before the investigating officer, non-leave, non-commission of offences, and cooperation with the investigation. The order cautions that the observations are limited to the bail application. The observations and directions are without prejudice to the merits of the case and subject to compliance with statutory safeguards if conditions are breached.
Muhammed Izudheen K filed WP(C) No.8938 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court seeking to lift a debit freeze on his bank account No. 10230002761146, allegedly imposed pursuant to a police requisition. The petition asserts the bank’s action is illegal and arbitrary. On admission, the court directed the bank not to debit any amount from the account. The final judgment follows the reasoning in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), adopting the principle that freeze orders should be confined to the exact amount mentioned in the police requisition, enabling the petitioner to transact beyond that limit. The court also relies on Supreme Court precedents interpreting Section 102 of the Cr.P.C (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), including State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy; Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat; and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others, reinforcing the necessity of timely reporting and judicial oversight of seizures. Accordingly, directions are issued to the 5th respondent bank and police: confine the freeze to the specified amount, inform about continued freezing, and act upon that information; if no information is provided within two months, lift the debit freeze, with service of the judgment to relevant officers. The petition is disposed accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4325 OF 2025 AND 4326 OF 2025 This common High Court of Kerala order disposes of two connected bail applications (B.A. Nos. 4325 and 4326 of 2025) arising from cross-border transport of Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the Kerala Abkari Act. Ganesh N and Rajesh R, petitioners in Crime Nos. 29/2025 (Kumbala Excise Range) and 15/2025 (Kasaragod Excise Range) were arrested in February–March 2025 and have been in custody since 27 February 2025. The petitioners sought bail, submitting willingness to comply with conditions and to cooperate with investigation. The Respondent State opposed bail, highlighting the serious nature of the offences under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act (190+ liters of IMFL allegedly transported for sale across state borders). The Court acknowledges the gravity of the allegations but emphasizes that detention should not be indefinite and that bail can be granted with appropriate conditions. Relying on Supreme Court diktats and Kerala decisions that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court grants bail subject to stringent conditions and monitoring: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO as required, restrictions on travel, prohibition against further offences, and weekly appearance before the Excise Range offices until final report is filed. The order cites Anzar Azeez, Jalaluddin Khan, and Manish Sisodia to justify the approach.
A bail application before the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, P. V. Kunhikrishnan) in B.A. No. 4304 of 2025 arises from Crime No. 88/2024 (Alathur Excise Range, Palakkad) under the Kerala Abkari Act (Sections 67B, 57(a) and 56(b)). Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 — Abhilash, Anoob, Thulaseedharan, Reghunathan, and Chandrababu K S — are accused in a toddy case involving samples taken by a Mobile Liquor Testing Laboratory. The samples, analysed on 28 May 2024, reportedly contained traces of sodium lauryl sulfate, a detergent component. Petitioners challenge the Section 57(a) allegation, arguing the presence of SLS results from vessel washing with detergent, and there is no actual mixing of SLS in toddy. They emphasize lack of prior criminal antecedents and that most actions stem from a single seizure day. Public Prosecutor counters that the accused are licensees across multiple excise ranges, and the maximum penalty for the offence can be five years. The court recognizes the need for careful arrest decisions, citing Arnesh Kumar and related authorities to emphasize that custodial interrogation is not automatically required where investigation is nearly complete, and bail remains a viable option. Ultimately, the court allows bail with conditions, noting the rule that bail is the norm and jail the exception, and directs interrogation within two weeks, with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties.
This Kerala High Court decision, in OP(C) 2718 of 2018, arises from a challenge to orders in I.A. Nos. 3375/2015 (Ext. P3) and 6269/2015 (Ext. P5) in O.S. No. 834/2013 before the III Addl. Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. The plaintiff, S. Sreekantan Nair, sought relief in a suit for Rs. 9,90,250 against his close relative, the defendant R. Rajendran Nair. The suit was listed for trial on 04.04.2015 but no court sitting occurred; the matter was adjourned to 10.04.2015, the last day before summer vacation, and the suit was dismissed for default on that day. Restoration and review petitions were filed and dismissed (Exts. P3 and P5). The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondent argued maintainability under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and an alternate remedy under Order 41 Rule 1(C); he relied on Shanmughadas v. Malayil Subramanian. The High Court held that Article 227 jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional rarity where manifest illegality exists, rejecting a strict barrier on IV remedies. Relying on Radhey Shyam, GP Srivastava, and Robin Thapa, the court found the lower court’s approach hypertechnical and harsh, deserving correction. The result is that Exts. P3 and P5 are set aside, Ext. P2 restoration is allowed, and O.S. 834/2013 is restored with directions for expeditious disposal by 23.12.2022, with parties to appear on 01.11.2022 and an interim order against alienation remaining in force.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4412 OF 2025 This bail application before the Kerala High Court concerns the accused, Riyas Ahammed P, who is charged under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act for possession of Alprazolam tablets weighing 21.8 grams, seized while crossing the Palakkad Excise Valayar Check post. The petitioner has been in custody since 26 February 2025 and seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The prosecution contends that the contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity and raises concerns about trial availability since the petitioner is a resident of Tamil Nadu; however, no criminal antecedents are reported against him. The petitioner submits willingness to comply with conditions and offers local Kerala sureties. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing the risk of non-appearance but also notes the absence of antecedents. The court observes that the contraband is an intermediate quantity and that the rigour under Sec. 37 NDPS is not attracted, while acknowledging the lack of prior record. Relying on established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the court grants bail with conditions, including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, local Kerala sureties, cooperation with investigation, and restrictions on travel. The order also cites principles from Chidambaram P, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez to support the relief.
This is a bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner Shameer is accused in Crime No.162/2025 of Kulathupuzha Police Station, Kollam, charged under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that Shameer and others cheated the defacto complainant’s son and his friends by offering jobs in a Singapore-based catering company, failing to provide the job with which money was collected, and that a dishonored cheque was issued. The petitioner contends a lack of connection to the first two accused, who are already arrested and released on bail, and expresses willingness to comply with stringent conditions for bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail but noted no criminal antecedents against Shameer. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized absence of antecedents and the comparative treatment of the co-accused; authorities then invoked established bail principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (and related authorities such as Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez), the court held that bail can be granted with conditions. The order grants bail with conditions, clarifying its scope as a decision on bail and preserving the option to cancel if conditions are violated, while ensuring fair trial.
BAIL APPL. NO.4448 OF 2025 Sabin Nath, the sole petitioner, is an accused in Crime No.450/2023 of Aluva West Police Station (Alangad), Ernakulam, facing allegations under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession of 96.112 grams of MDMA concealed in a shoe, the case now registered as SC No.68/2024 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge – I, North Paravur. The bail application under BNSS Section 483 was moved in Bail Appl. No.4448 of 2025 before Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan. The petitioner contends that the trial court did not properly apply apex court precedents and dismissed the bail merely on grounds of “criminal antecedents,” pointing to a separate 2.67-gram MDMA seizure in the same narrative. He argues that he has already undergone custody for about one year and six months and that the absence of a presiding officer in the jurisdictional court, along with prolonged detention, warrants bail under established Supreme Court principles. The petitioner cites Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal, Hasanujjaman and others v. State of West Bengal, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to emphasize the protective reach of Article 21 and the occasional overriding of NDPS Act limits when trial delays undermine fundamental rights. The State opposes bail, labeling the offence serious and the contraband quantity as a commercial quantity. The High Court ultimately grants bail with stringent conditions, balancing individual liberty with public interest, and clarifies that the observations are confined to the present bail application.
MACA 2076 of 2012; OPMV 1870 of 2006 This is a Motor Vehicles Act appeal under MACA 2076/2012 arising from OP(MV) 1870/2006, decided by the Kerala High Court. The appellants are the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the Respondents are the claimants, the parents of a 13-year-old boy who died in a motor vehicle accident on 19.4.2000, when travelling in a tempo van owned by the 1st respondent and driven by him in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal held the accident was caused by the 1st respondent’s negligence, awarded Rs. 2,44,500 as compensation, and directed the insurer to pay. The insurer challenged the finding that the deceased was engaged by the owner to help in supplying drinking water, arguing he was a gratuitous passenger. It relied on precedents such as Asha Rani and Saju P. Paul to contend that the insurer should not indemnify if the deceased was not engaged. The mother testified that the boy accompanied the driver for work, earning daily wages and helping to deliver water. The High Court held that pleadings in Section 166 MV Act proceedings need not be rigid and that there is a principled duty to award just compensation. On the evidence, the boy was found to be engaged by the owner as an employee in the relevant vehicle, making the insurer liable. The court enhanced the quantum to Rs. 6,02,500 and laid down the conditions for deposit and disbursement with interest.
This Kerala High Court judgment, a Miscellaneous Second Appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Section 100 CPC, concerns whether a landowner who joined with a builder in a joint venture/development agreement is an allottee or a promoter, and whether the builder must execute a registered deed of conveyance in favour of the landowner for the built-up area. The appellants challenged orders of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (REARA) dated 15.12.2022 and the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REATA) order dated 15.09.2023, arguing that Annexure-A did not establish joint control or promoter status; they contended the landowner’s role was limited to contributing land and receiving a share of the constructed area, not to active management or control of construction. The respondent maintained that the terms of the joint venture agreement and the sharing of built-up area rendered the landowner an allottee and the builder a promoter, obliging conveyance. The court examined key definitions under the Real Estate Act (Sections 2(d), 2(s), 2(t), 2(zn), 2(zk), 17(1)) and the joint venture terminology, cross-referencing precedents (notably Bunga Daniel Babu, Faqir Chand Gulati, and Punjab University v. Unit Trust of India) to interpret what constitutes a joint venture and who qualifies as an allottee or promoter. Ultimately, the court held that Annexure-A shows no active involvement by the landowner in construction, yet entitles him to built-up area; consequently, the appellants are bound to execute conveyance for the landowner’s share, and the Miscellaneous Second Appeal fails. The decision relies on established precedents regarding joint venture concepts and the consumer-protection framework applied to development agreements.
This is a bail petition under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) filed by Babu Thomas, accused in Crime No.495/2025 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. The informant, a 42-year-old home nurse, alleged that on the night of 16 December 2024 she was assaulted and raped by the petitioner, who is her son-in-law. The FIR was registered on 19 December 2024 after delays due to illness in the informant’s family. The petitioner has been in custody since 10 March 2025. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter is settled and Annexure-A contains the victim’s affidavit stating no objection to bail, and that the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegation but keeping in view the settled position on bail jurisprudence, the court must balance the rights of the accused with the investigation and victim’s interests. The court invoked established principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court decisions such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Kerala decisions like Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. Ultimately, the court allowed bail with conditions, emphasizing that the order’s observations apply only to this petition and that violation can lead to cancellation of bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4424 OF 2025 Shyamkumar S, the petitioner-accused, moved a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.219/2025 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad. The FIR alleges involvement of the petitioner and others in offences under sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 190, 189, 110, 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an incident on 16 February 2025 at around 1:30 a.m., where, in an alleged unlawful assembly, the first accused allegedly inflicted a cut injury; the second accused (the petitioner) is claimed to be involved in the incident, while accused Nos.1 and 3 are said to have caused injuries and threatened staff of TT Restaurant. The petitioner contends that his name is not even mentioned in the First Information Statement. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting seriousness and ongoing investigation. The court observed that accused Nos.1 and 3 were named in the FIS, but the petitioner was not, and concluded that bail could be granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez and Joginder Kumar, the court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and laid down specific conditions, including two weeks for interrogation, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, travel restrictions, non-commission of similar offences, and liberty to investigate. The order emphasizes protective conditions and preserves the option to cancel bail if violated, ultimately allowing bail to the petitioner.
The Kerala High Court, in a criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 1433 of 2008) arising from the judgment in SC 36/2006 of the Adhoc-I Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, scrutinizes conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. On 06.05.2004 at about 9:00 p.m., the appellant and another accused were said to be selling illicit arrack at Enathu. After investigation, a final report was filed and the matter proceeded to trial, where the court convicted the appellant under the Abkari Act and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, while the co-accused was acquitted. The appeal centers on serious legal gaps in the prosecution’s chain of evidence: lack of arrest memo and arrest intimation, non-production of the arrest memo, and the absence of a forwarding note for sending the sample to the laboratory. The prosecution relies on PWs and Exts P1–P5 to establish seizure and analysis, but the court emphasizes mandatory procedures outlined in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and subsequent Kerala authorities. The judge catalogs a string of authorities (Bhaskaran, Rajamma, Ramachandran, Ramankutty, Vijay Pandey, Daulat Ram, Sasidharan) stressing seal descriptions, specimen production, forwarding notes, and the need to prove a link between seized contraband and the sample tested. Ultimately, the court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the required link, reverses the conviction, and acquits the appellant, with interim deposits to be returned.
This case concerns a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC filed by Suni challenging a Family Court Nedumangad order in MC 95/2016 directing maintenance to his wife Sandhyamol and two minor children. The respondents alleged that Suni deserted them on 13.04.2013; the wife is employed as a teacher, and the children are school-going. The Family Court had fixed maintenance at Rs. 7,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for each child per month from the petition date (26.02.2016), based on the petitioner’s status as a Gulf-based heavy vehicle driver with substantial earnings (claimed Rs. 1,00,000 per month) and agricultural income of Rs. 5,000, while the wife and children allegedly have limited means. Suni contended that the wife’s income is higher (Rs. 13,500 per month) and that his own earnings have collapsed to about Rs. 350 per day after returning from the Gulf, along with loss of conjugal relations. The High Court, after noting the husband’s past earnings and the children’s needs, concluded that the Family Court rightly fixed Rs. 13,000 per month in total maintenance, and found no illegality in the order. Citing Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, the court affirmed the obligation to maintain dependants and upheld the maintenance balance. The petition was dismissed, keeping the Family Court order in force.
CRL.R.P.No.560 of 2021; Crl.M.C.No.2017 of 2022 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (Crl.R.P. No.560 of 2021) along with Crl.M.C. No.2017 of 2022, heard by a Single Judge, Justice P.G. Ajithkumar. The matter stems from a final report filed by the CBI in RC 18(A)/2008/CBI/KER before a Special Court (SPE/CBI), Ernakulam, later transferred to the Special Court at Thiruvananthapuram. The accused include a former public servant (1st accused) and his wife (2nd accused, Sandhya). The 1st accused died during trial, leading to transfer of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228(a) Cr.P.C. The CBI challenges this transfer in a revision petition, while the 2nd accused seeks to quash the final report in CC No.125/2021. The prosecution alleges offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) PC Act and Section 109 IPC. The court frames the legal debate around whether the 2nd accused could be charged with abetment where assets were acquired in her name, whether abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or aiding, and whether the Special Court retained jurisdiction after the death of the 1st accused. Relying on precedents, the court ultimately upholds the transfer order (for the 1st petition) and quashes the further proceedings in CC No.125/2021 (for the 2nd petition). The decision reflects the nuanced interplay between abetment jurisprudence and post-death jurisdiction limits in PC Act cases.
This appeal arises from a writ petition challenging a Kerala High Court Single Judge order dated 07.12.2021 that directed the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to furnish copies of the writ petitioner’s practical examination answer scripts and the corresponding answer key in the DNB (Nephrology) practical exam, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Single Judge held that RTI permits access to such documents, notwithstanding NBEMS policies that bar revaluation or rechecking and that photocopies of practical sheets are generally unavailable. The court anchored its reasoning on Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others (2011) 8 SCC 497, explaining that Section 22 of the RTI Act empowers disclosure of information that is not confidential under Section 8(1). NBEMS contended that the OSCE-based answer sheets are not theory papers and are generated under internal policy forbidding copies, and that results are determined by external examiners. They also relied on Maharashtra State Board decisions, which the court distinguished. The Kerala High Court ultimately affirmed the learned Judge’s directions, held that RTI prevails over bye-laws, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the directive to provide copies and the answer key subject to RTI exemptions.
This Kerala High Court MACA concerns an appeal by Leena, the claimant/petitioner in O.P.(MV) 723/2006, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor award for injuries sustained on 01.01.2006 while riding as a pillion on a motorcycle. The Tribunal awarded compensation after determining contributory negligence of 25% on the motorcycle rider (KL-7 AR-3332) in a case where two pillion riders were carried, leading to an apparent overload violation of Section 128 MV Act. The claimant sought enhancement, arguing the evidence, especially charge sheet against the driver, should be treated as prima facie proof of negligence, and that the injury and medical evidence justified higher compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, including loss of earnings and bystander expenses. The appellant contends that in cases of composite negligence a pillion rider can pursue all tortfeasors; joint and several liability is appropriate, and the burden is on the respondent to discredit a charge sheet. The High Court examines authorities on negligent driving, composite versus contributory negligence, and joint tort-feasor liability, including Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and T.O. Anthony v Karvarnan, and ultimately allows the appeal, setting aside the 25% deduction and enhancing compensation to Rs. 47,550 with interest and directions to satisfy the award within two months.
Shaji and Jayakumar, the appellants, challenge a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act recorded by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha, in Sessions Case No.235/2005. The trial court found them guilty of possessing 140 litres of illicit liquor and sentenced each to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The prosecution’s case rests on the seizure made on 06.01.2003 at Adimaly and the subsequent ref–erence to a Chemical Examiner’s report. On appeal, the appellants contend that the arrest itself is not proved because there is no arrest memo or arrest intimation produced before the court, rendering the arrest doubtful. They also submit that there is no proven link showing that the contraband seized at the scene reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, highlighting delays in producing the seized properties (notably Ext. P4) before the court and the non–examination of officials who handled the sample in transit. The appellants rely on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal to argue that arrest procedures must be properly documented, and they cite Ramankutty, Ravi, and Vijay Pandey to emphasize the need for an unbroken evidentiary chain and for not treating lab certificates as conclusive without proper linkage. The Kerala High Court ultimately allows the appeal, acquits the accused, and directs their release, holding that the prosecution failed to establish arrest and its connection to the laboratory analysis, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
MACA NO.2715 OF 2016 & CO NO.24 OF 2017 This Kerala High Court judgment involves MACA No. 2715 of 2016 and CO No. 24 of 2017, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award in OP(MV) No. 758 of 2012, Perumbavoor. On 22 January 2012, a Poclain machine caused the death of Subair M.K. while it was being operated on private property; the Tribunal awarded Rs. 24,66,600 out of a claimed Rs. 64,41,000. The Insurance Company, insurer of the Poclain, contends there was no liability since the accident occurred on private property and the deceased stood there without authority, and separately argues the compensation is excessive, with notional income of the deceased set too high and future prospects misapplied. The cross objectors—the wife, children, and parents of the deceased—sought higher compensation, including enhanced loss of consortium and better heads of damages. The 2012 accident involved a vehicle in a private setting, and the driver allegedly lacked a valid licence per Ext. A6, though the Tribunal found liability. Throughout, the court cites Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Ramachandrappa and United India Insurance v. Satinder Kaur to calibrate income, future prospects, deductions, funeral expenses, and non-pecuniary heads. The judge ultimately disposes of the appeal and cross objections by revising several heads of damages, holding the insurer liable to pay to the cross objectors and allowing recovery from the owner after payment, with deposits within two months.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for mandatory injunction, damages for unlawful use and occupation, and a prohibitory injunction in a property dispute over a plaint schedule property in Kozhikode. The plaintiff Mini claimed title to the property through Ext.A11 Jenmam Assignment Deed No.1624/2015 and alleged that the defendant Manikkoth Pradeep Kumar trespassed on and occupied the partly completed building, prompting a suit for possession and reliefs. The defendant acknowledged Ext.A11 but contended it was not intended to confer title and that Ext.A11 was obtained fraudulently; he relied on two suits—O.S. No.533 of 2016 to set aside Ext.A11 and O.S. No.472 of 2014 for prohibitory injunction—and submitted that Ext.A11 was a sham deed. The Munsiff Court decreed in plaintiff's favor, ordering the defendant to vacate within one month, to pay damages for occupation from 23.06.2016, and to refrain from trespass. The appellate court confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the High Court did not find a substantial question of law, citing Order XLII Rule 2 and Section 100 CPC, and discussed established jurisprudence on substantial questions of law from Nazir Mohamed, Kondiba Kadam, Santosh Hazari and Biswanath Ghosh, as well as Government of Kerala v. Joseph. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed, and the plaintiff remains entitled to possession and damages; Ext.A11 is treated as valid, and the defendant is required to vacate.
