IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 284 of 2008()
1. K.MEERA RAJENDRAN, D/O.LATE V.KUNJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.JANAMMA, D/O.PADMANABHAN, JYOTHI
... Respondent
2. SHEELA D/O.P.JANAMMA (NOW IN MALAYSIA
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
F.A.O.No. 284 OF 2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate
Judge, Attingal in I.A.No. 1733/07 in A.S. No. 75/2007. It is an
application filed by the plaintiff in the suit for injunction to restrain
the defendants from making any further construction in the
disputed pathway. As per the plaint description, ‘A’ schedule is the
property of the plaintiff, ‘B’ schedule is the property of the
defendants and ‘C’ schedule is the pathway over which the plaintiff
claims right by easement of grant. The plaintiff had obtained the
property in the year 1977. The plaintiff was away at Delhi and
defendants were away at Singapore. The crucial question is with
respect to easement of grant which is specified in the document of
title by the plaintiff. The Commissioner who inspected the property
was able to find that there was a compound wall aged about 30-40
years and also some tress in the disputed pathway. It is also stated
by the appellate Court that there was no application for injunction
even during the pendency of the original suit. Therefore the court
felt that balance of convenience will not be in favour of the plaintiff
F.A.O.No. 284 OF 2008
2
at this juncture. I feel the said approach is proper. But I make it
very clear that these observations in an interlocutory order on the
basis of the statement in the judgment of the Trial court shall not
be the guiding factor to decide the appeal when it is argued on
merits. All the relevant materials supplied in the suit with the
substantial question of law involved shall be considered by the court
and appeal be disposed of. The learned counsel then prays that at
least there must be a time bound disposal. Considering the anxiety
of the party, I direct the learned subordinate Judge, Attingal where
A.S. 75/2007 is pending to consider and dispose of the matter
within a period of three months from today.
F.A.O. disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE
vkm