IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 358 of 2011(O)
1. SREE KRISHNA KSHETHRA SAMUCHAYAM TRUST,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.M.RAJAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
O.P(C).No.358 OF 2011
------------------------------
th
Dated this the 27 day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The first defendant in O.S.No.154 of 2009 on
the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thalassery
challenges in this Original Petition the order
passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A.No.911 of 2009
and the judgment passed by the appellate court in
appeal in CMA No.34 of 2009 Sub Court, Thalassery.
The first respondent filed the suit for injunction
in respect of a property having an extent of 67
cents. The petitioner herein resisted the suit. The
contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner
trust obtained rights from three persons who are
co-owners in respect of the property. It is also
contended that the plaintiff was also a signatory
to the agreement agreeing to transfer the property
to the first defendant.
O.P(C).No.358 OF 2011 2
2. The courts below held that the property
belongs to 25 co-owners and of whom only the three
persons have transferred their rights in favour of
the first defendant trust. The courts below also
held that the disputes involved in the case could
be considered only at the time of trial. The
courts below directed both parties to maintain the
status quo.
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner did
not get the full rights from all the co-owners. The
petitioner contended that a temple was constructed
in the property on getting possession of the
property. According to the petitioner, now what
remains is the ‘Prathistha Kalasam’ and at that
juncture, the first respondent filed the suit and
obtained an interim order.
4. I have carefully gone through the order
passed by the trial court and the judgment passed
by the appellate court. The courts below considered
O.P(C).No.358 OF 2011 3
the relevant facts and held that it is necessary to
maintain the status quo until further orders. No
grounds are made out for interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, there may be a direction
to the trial court to dispose of the suit
expeditiously. I do not think it is necessary to
issue notice to the respondent for issuing a
direction that regard. The trial court shall
expedite the trial of the suit after the steps are
complete in the case.
With the above observations, the Original
Petition is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms