IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 186 of 2006()
1. LEELA, W/O.N.M.RAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUBHADRA, W/O.SIVANANDAN,
... Respondent
2. RADHAMMA, W/O.SREENIVASAN,
3. SARASAMMA, W/O.RAGHUDEVAN,
4. VALSALA, W/O.SOMARAJAN,
5. LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F.A.O. No. 186 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J,
Appeal by the plaintiff against an order dismissing an
application for temporary injunction. The suit is one for partition.
It is contended that the petitioner is having absolute possession
over plaint A schedule property, and there is a threat of being
dispossessed forcibly at the instance of the defendant, and hence
they be restrained by an order of injunction. Contesting defendants
on the other hand contended that the plaintiff has no title or
possession in respect of plaint A schedule property and it is
absolutely vested with the second defendant by virtue of a gift deed
executed by her father and she is in possession. Second
respondent contended that she alone is entitled to the property and
hence the plaintiff cannot be granted any injunction as prayed for.
Exts.A1 to A12 were the documents marked on the side of the
plaintiff and Exts.B1 to B12 were on the side of the defendants.
Ext.A1 is the sale deed, by which late Raghavan purchased the
FAO. 186/2006.. 2
property from one Kesavan and Ext.A2 is the gift deed by Raghavan in
favour of the second defendant. Ext.A3 is the sale deed, by which
Raghavan and Lekshmi purchased plaint C schedule property. Ext.A4
is the sale deed by which Raghavan purchased plaint B schedule
property. Ext.A5 is the sale deed by which Raghavan purchased 15
sq.links of land in Sy.No.3125 of Chavara Village from one Kutty.
Ext.A6 is a sale deed evidencing purchase of 11and a half cents by
Lekshmi. Ext.A7 is yet another sale deed by which Lakshmi and
Raghavan purchased 10 cents of property in Chavara Village from one
Sivaraman Pillai. Ext.A9is the photocopy of ration card. Ext.A10 is
the sale deed by which Raghavan and Lekshmi purchased 5 cents of
property in Sy.No. 4680 of Chavara Village. Exts.A11 and A12 are
ration cards. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the joint will executed by
Raghavan and Lekshmi in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Ext.B2 is the
photocopy of the partition deed between Raghavan and Lekshmi.
Ext.B4 is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of one
Anandan. Exts.B5 and B6 are the tax receipts. Ext.B7 is the building
tax receipt. Ext.B8 is the photocopy of the property tax receipt. The
FAO. 186/2006.. 3
court below found that the case of the plaintiff that she is in possession
of the property is not supported by any documents. Though various
improvements were said to have been made by the plaintiff, that is also
not supported by any evidence. After analysing the evidence on record,
the court below found that the plaintiff has not adduced any
satisfactory evidence to support his case and injunction was refused,
against which the present appeal is filed.
2. No interim injunction was granted by this court. The
matter was pending before this court for over three years. At this
distance of time, we do not think that temporary injunction could be
granted or is it necessitated to sub serve the main relief sought for in
the suit. There is no justification to change the status quo as on the
date of filing of the appeal. If there is any imminent threat as was
alleged in the plaint, the appellant would have moved and pressed for
some interim relief, which however was not granted by this court.
Therefore, the only direction that is called for is to expedite the trial of
the suit and dispose of the same, if not already disposed of, untramelled
or uninfluenced by the prima facie observations contained in the order
FAO. 186/2006.. 4
under appeal. We do so. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is
dismissed.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.