Thomas George vs Kathrikutty George on 30 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 114 of 2008()


1. THOMAS GEORGE, S/O.LATE N.T.GEORGE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KATHRIKUTTY GEORGE, W/O.LATE N.T.GEORGE
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHEENA GEORGE, D/O.LATE N.T. GEORGE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :30/06/2008

 O R D E R
                               P.R. RAMAN &
                     T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                          F.A.O. NO. 114 OF 2008
                         = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

             DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2008.

                              J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

This is an appeal against the order passed in I.A.2538/2007 in I.A.

1273/2007 in O.S. No. 108/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for demarcation of boundary

and for injunction against alienation. In that suit, an interlocutory

application as I.A. 1273/2007 was filed seeking for a temporary injunction

against the respondents from alienating the property before demarcation.

The court below passed an order to maintain status quo till the application

itself is considered. Later, by the impugned order, the same was modified

permitting the respondent to alienate the property. Virtually, I.A.

1273/2007 will become infructuous because of the impugned order. In such

circumstances, this Court, being satisfied of a primafacie case, granted stay

and as a result, the status quo order passed in I.A. 1273/2007 continues.

2. Heard both sides. Since the very application is filed for

restraining the respondents from alienating the property, whether or not the

FAO 114/2008 :2:

petitioner is entitled to such a relief itself is to be considered after

considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. Therefore,

it is only appropriate that status quo will continue till I.A. 1273/2007 is

considered by the court below. In that view of the matter, the impugned

order is set aside for the limited purpose of enabling the court below to

consider the interim application and till such time, status quo will be

maintained.

The F.A.O. is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE)

knc/-