IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15950 of 2009(O)
1. GOPINATHA KURUP,S/O.VASUDEVA KURUP,
... Petitioner
2. MRIDULA G.KURUP,D/O.GOPINATHA KURUP,
Vs
1. VALSALA RAVEENDRAN,D/O.SARASWATHY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15950 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To set aside the order in I.A.No.1127/2007 in
O.S.No.209/2007 dated 30.07.2007 of Munsiff Court,
Attingal and the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court
of the Sub Judge, Attingal in C.M.a.No.28/2007 dated
19.11.2008.
ii) To pass an order allowing the interim injunction
as prayed for by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.1127/2007 in
O.S.no.209/2007 before the Munsiff Court, Attingal.
2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.209/97 on the
file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal. Suit was one for declaring a
sale deed as null and void and also for a perpetual prohibitory
injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the
plaint properties, two items, and causing obstruction to its
peaceful and enjoyment by the plaintiffs. Along with the suit,
plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction as prayed
for in the suit till its disposal. Respondent on entering
W.P.(C).No.15950 of 2009 – O
2
appearance filed counter resisting application for injunction. The
learned Munsiff after hearing both sides and appreciating the
materials produced found that the plaintiffs have not made out a
prima facie case for the discretionary relief for interim injunction.
In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the order of the
learned Munsiff, the learned Sub Judge concurred with the views
formed by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. Ext.P3
is the order of the learned Munsiff and Ext.P4, the judgment of
the learned Sub Judge, both of whom concurrently held that the
plaintiffs having not made out a prima facie case is not entitled to
the relief sought for. Impeaching the correctness and propriety
of Exts.P3 and P4, petitioners have filed this writ petition
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.
4. From the submissions made and taking note of the
facts and circumstances presented, I find there is no scope for
interfering with Exts.P3 and P4 exercising the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court. In one of the two items involved in the
W.P.(C).No.15950 of 2009 – O
3
suit which is covered by the sale deed, the plaintiffs claimed right
under a will executed by one Gouri Amma, who was one among
the executants in the sale deed which was sought to be declared
as null and void in the suit. I do not want to dilate anything
about the bequest made, which could have come into operation
only after the death of testator. Both the courts appreciating the
materials produced in the I.A. in the proper perspective have held
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discretionary relief. I find
that Exts.P3 and P4 do not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference.
The writ petition is dismissed making it clear that the
learned Munsiff has to dispose the suit, after affording reasonable
opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their
case, untrammelled by any of the observations made in Ext.P3
order and Ext.P4 judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-