Aggrieved by certain observations alleged to have been made by this Court while disposing of the respective Regular Second Appeals, the respective respondents in the appeals have come up before this Court with these review petitions. 2. To appreciate the facts leading to the review petitions, certain details have to be mentioned. Three suits were jointly tried and disposed of. The plaintiff in O.S.No.941/1995 traced title to 25 cents of property through Exts.A2 and A3 documents while the defendant in the said suit claimed right over the same property by virtue of Exts.B1 and B2. The case of the defendant was that under the guise of taking delivery of the property by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff in O.S.No.941/1995, certain portions of the property belonging to the defendant were taken. This was the main contention at the trial stage as well as at the appellate stage.
3. Before this Court, when the matter was taken up, the said contention was given up and entirely a new case was set up and it is mentioned in the judgment. This Court found that the two properties covered by the document of title in O.S.No.941/1995 and Exts.B1 and B2 title deeds of the defendant are entirely different properties and there are nothing in common between the property claimed by the plaintiff and defendant. This Court then observed that if the defendant in O.S.No.941/1995 had any grievance regarding the identity of the properties covered by Exts.B1 and B2, it was left open to him to get his right agitated in appropriate proceedings by taking appropriate steps. It seems that the defendant, on the basis of that observation, filed O.S.No.1188/2014 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners takes objection to paragraph 25 of the plaint which reads as follows:
“25. Since the right of the plaintiff to sue for such purpose is expressly reserved and left open in the common judgment dated 26th May 2014 in RSA No.654 of 2012, 769 of 2012, 770 of 2012 and 774 of 2012, it is submitted that there is no legal impediment or bar to the suit”.
4. It is contended on behalf of the review petitioners that the observation made by this Court that the right of the plaintiff in the present suit to agitate his claim in respect of the property covered by Exts.B1 and B2 is reserved has prompted him to mention that that gives him a cause of action. Therefore, it is prayed that it may be clarified that the judgment of this Court does not furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff in the present suit.
5. There seems to be no need for a clarification in this regard. All that this Court has stated was that in the light of the fact that the appellant before this Court had no case that the respondent before this Court was in possession of any portion of properties obtained by the appellant as per Exts.B1 and B2 and also that the respondent before this Court was in possession of the property covered by Exts.A2 and A3 only which are two different properties, if the appellant has any grievance regarding the title and possession of the property, it is for him to get his rights established through independent proceedings. That is all what this Court had observed. It must be stated that even if this Court had not observed so, that would not have precluded the present respondent in the review petitions from agitating his claims in respect of Exts.B1 and B2. It is too difficult to accept the contention that cause of action is furnished by this Court. Merely because it is so shown in the plaint that does not mean that it is so. The court below is seized of the matter and it is inappropriate for this Court to express any opinion which influences the court below. There is no clarification or modification necessary in the judgment rendered by this Court on 26.05.2014.
These review petitions are without merits and they are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
smp P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE