IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20818 of 2010(O)
1. SRI.GOPALA SWAMY GOUNDER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3. THE TAHSILDAR
4. SACHIDHANANDA GOPALAKRISHNAN
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.C.No. 20818 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 07th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner before me is the plaintiff in O.S.No.333 of 2010
pending in the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur. His case is that
he got title and possession of 13.34 acres as per Ext.P1, document
No.458 of 1961 executed by his mother. He sold a portion of the
property to Venkataraman and Revathi who in turn assigned that
portion to the father of respondent No.4 and others as per Ext.P2.
97 and >th cents was acquired by the Government in connection
with the Chittur river project. The property now belonging to and
in the possession of petitioner is 1.46> acres in survey 593/3 (RS
No.271). After father of respondent No.4 and others purchased
property as per Ext.P2, father of respondent No.4 died in June,
2010 and property covered by Ext.P2 is in the possession of
respondent No.4. There is a well in the property of petitioner over
which respondent No.4 made a claim. He has colluded with
respondent No.2 to create proceedings for assignment of land
under the Kerala Land Assignment Act. In the circumstances
petitioner filed O.S.No.333 of 2010 for fixation of boundary of the
property belonging to him and for injunction against respondent
W.P.C.No.20818 of 2010 : 2 :
No.4 and others. Grievance of petitioner is that respondent No.2
has issued notice to respondent No.4 directing respondent No.4 to
produce documents to prove his claim over the property. Learned
counsel says that even during pendancy of the suit, respondent
No.2 is proceeding to adjudicate upon the dispute. Petitioner has
filed I.A.No.1359 of 2010 to restrain respondent No.2 from taking
any decision pursuant to Ext.P6, notice issued to respondent No.4
until the application for injunction are disposed of. Learned
counsel states that proceedings before respondent No.2 is posted
on 19-07-2010 and unless respondent No.2 is prevented from
proceeding with that proceeding, he is likely to pass order in
favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the subject matter of suit.
Respondent No.2 who is allegedly proceeding to pass order
is also a party to the suit. Decision of the civil court on title has to
prevail. Moreover, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate
relief from learned Munsiff who is considering the suit. There is
no reason for this court to interfere in the matter at this stage.
Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek
appropriate relief as prayed for in I.A.No.1359 of 2010 from the
court below and if at all any such order has been passed by
respondent No.2, to challenge the same in the pending suit, the
writ petition is closed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-