IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23456 of 2010(O)
1. THIDIT BHASKARAN, S/O.KUNHATHI AMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALLARA VALAPPIL NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
2. ARUMADI YASODA, W/O. KALLARA VALAPPIL
For Petitioner :SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH,J.
---------------------------------------
W.P(C).NO. 23456 OF 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 2009 of
the Court of learned Munsiff, Payyannur. That is a suit for prohibitory
injunction filed against respondents trespassing into the suit property
and committing waste. Petitioner filed I.A.No.570 of 2009 and prayed
for an order of temporary injunction in the same line. According to
the petitioner, he purchased the suit property from the respondent
No.1/defendant No.1 as per Ext.P11, sale deed dated 4.2.1985.
Though, in that assignment deed eastern boundary of the property
assigned to the petitioner is stated as rest of property of respondent
No.1, there is no such property belonging to respondent No.1 on the
east, petitioner contended. Respondents resisted the suit
contending that they have property of the east of property covered by
Ext.P11, sale deed. They also claimed possession of the said
property. Both sides produced the relevant documents in the trial
court which found a prima facie case in favour of petitioner and
allowed I.A. No. 570 of 2009. Respondents challenged that order in
C.M.A.No.16 of 2009. Learned Sub Judge by Ext.P7, judgment
reversed the order of learned Munsiff on I.A.No.570 of 2009 and
W.P(C).NO. 23456 OF 2010 2
dismissed that application. The judgment in C.M.A.No.16 of 2009 is
under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner
contended that there is sufficient evidence to show that the disputed
property belongs to and is in the possession of petitioner and hence,
learned Sub Judge was not correct in reversing the order on
I.A.No.570 of 2009. At any rate, respondent ought to have been
injunction from committing waste in the disputed property. Learned
counsel for respondents contend that even the document produced
by petitioner is sufficient to show that there is land belonging to
respondent No.1 on the east after assigning property covered by
Ext.P11, and hence learned Sub Judge is correct dismissing I.A.No.
570 of 2009.
2. It appears from the contention raised by the parties that there
is dispute regarding title and possession of the disputed property. In
Ext.P11, assignment deed in favour of petitioner what is assigned to
him is 3 acres out of 3.10 acres and the eastern boundary of the said
3 acres is described as rest of property of respondent No.1. It is in
the circumstances that learned Sub Judge reversed the order on I.A.
No.570 of 2009. I stated that there is dispute regarding title and
possession of the disputed property which the trial court is to resolve
as it arises from the pleadings after trial of the suit. It is not
W.P(C).NO. 23456 OF 2010 3
necessary for this Court to interfere with the finding entered by the
learned Sub Judge in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution. But, I make it clear that the
observations and findings made by the courts below will be confined
to the disposal of I.A.No.570 of 2009 and that issues arising in the
suit shall be decided by the trial court untrammeled by the
observations or findings in the said order or judgment.
3. So far as prayer of petitioner that respondents may be
directed no commit of waste in the suit property is concerned, it is
contended by learned counsel for respondents that there are no
improvements in the disputed property. Learned counsel on both
sides have referred me to Ext.P3, report of the advocate
commissioner. What is necessary is to direct parties not to alter the
present condition of the disputed property until disposal of the suit.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the parties
not to alter the present condition of the disputed property until
disposal of the suit.
THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE.
pm