{"id":148739,"date":"2010-06-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-04-14T11:45:33","modified_gmt":"2018-04-14T06:15:33","slug":"vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 596 of 2009()\n\n\n1. VINCENT MATHEW(CORRECT NAME IS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. POTHANICADU FARMER'S CO-OPERATIVE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE POTHANICADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :08\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n            ====================================\n                      C.R.P. No.596 of 2009\n            ====================================\n              Dated this the 9th   day of June, 2010\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      Petitioner, obviously on the strength of a plan and permit<\/p>\n
obtained from the local authority started construction of a building<\/p>\n
in his property. Respondent No.1 which is a Co-operative Bank and<\/p>\n
which owned a building adjacent to the building being constructed<\/p>\n
by    petitioner made a representation to the local authority<\/p>\n
(respondent No.2) on 06.10.2008           stating that     proposed<\/p>\n
construction is not in accordance with the Building Rules (for short,<\/p>\n
“the Rules”) and that if the illegal construction is proceeded with,<\/p>\n
it will result in irreparable loss and injury to respondent No.1 and<\/p>\n
hence    requested     local authority (respondent No.2) to    direct<\/p>\n
stoppage of         construction.   Since no action    according to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1, was taken respondent No.1 moved this Court in<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.32191 of 2008 impleading petitioner, respondent No.2,<\/p>\n
Additional Director (Vigilance), Panchayat Directorate, Trivandrum<\/p>\n
and others as parties. Prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus or<\/p>\n
other appropriate writ or direction      and command     respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to 5 therein to take immediate action on the representation<\/p>\n
made     by   respondent No.1 and on enquiry if it       found that<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                   -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent     No.6 in the Writ Petition (petitioner herein)      is<\/p>\n
carrying on illegal construction, take immediate steps to prevent<\/p>\n
such construction and demolish the construction already made by<\/p>\n
petitioner.   That Writ Petition, I am told is pending.       In the<\/p>\n
meantime under the impression that respondent No.2 is not<\/p>\n
taking effective steps on the representation respondent No.1 filed<\/p>\n
O.S. No.490 of 2008 in the court of learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha<\/p>\n
seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining<\/p>\n
petitioner from making construction in plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
in violation of the Rules and      in such a way as to prevent free<\/p>\n
flow of air and light to the building in plaint A schedule belonging<\/p>\n
to respondent No.1 and also in such way as to affect privacy,<\/p>\n
safety and security of the building of respondent No.1 and the<\/p>\n
Bank functioning therein. There was also a prayer for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction to direct petitioner    to demolish and remove that part<\/p>\n
of   construction made in plaint B schedule in violation of the<\/p>\n
Rules. The suit was resisted by petitioner on various grounds<\/p>\n
including that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the<\/p>\n
suit. As per order of court below local authority was impleaded<\/p>\n
as additional defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 in this case.) Issue<\/p>\n
regarding jurisdiction was heard by the learned Munsiff as a<\/p>\n
preliminary issue     and as per order dated 01.07.2004 learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff held that jurisdiction of the court is not ousted. That<\/p>\n
order is under challenge in this revision petition. Learned Senior<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Advocate for petitioner-defendant No.1 contend that in so far as<\/p>\n
the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short, “the Act”) and the Rules<\/p>\n
which are made applicable to the Panchayat in question provides<\/p>\n
for ample remedy for demolition of        structures constructed in<\/p>\n
violation of    plan and permit or        the Act and Rules and<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 having already moved the local authority for<\/p>\n
the said purpose jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly ousted.<\/p>\n
It is also the contention of        learned Senior Advocate that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 has elected a course of action by moving a<\/p>\n
petition before the local authority and hence also jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the civil court is ousted and respondent No.1 cannot now choose<\/p>\n
a different Forum – the civil court.  Learned Senior Advocate has<\/p>\n
placed    reliance   on    the     decisions   in    Thodupuzha<\/p>\n
Municipality v. Abraham Philip<\/a> (2007 [4] KLT 972),<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation v. Mohar<\/p>\n
Singh<\/a> (2008 [3] KLT 371 (SC) and Premier Automobiles v<\/p>\n
K.S. Wadke (AIR 1975 SC 2238). In response it is contended<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that representation made<\/p>\n
by    it before    local authority was     only for staying further<\/p>\n
construction of     building and not for demolition of the existing<\/p>\n
structures and that jurisdiction of civil court is not ousted either<\/p>\n
expressly or impliedly by any provision in the Act or the Rules.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision                in<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                   -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa<\/a> (2009) 4 SCC<\/p>\n
299). According to the learned counsel principle of election of<\/p>\n
Forum does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
      2.     Before going into the question of jurisdiction of civil<\/p>\n
court it is necessary to refer to the averments in the plaint (Ext.R1<\/p>\n
(b). It is stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that petitioner has<\/p>\n
started with construction of a multi storied building very close to<\/p>\n
the building of respondent No.1 and       that   construction   is in<\/p>\n
violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules. Details of the<\/p>\n
alleged violation are given in the said paragraph. In paragraph 4<\/p>\n
it is stated that petitioner had submitted building plan before<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 for construction of the building. In paragraph 5 it<\/p>\n
is stated that petitioner has started construction of building in<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule in violation of the Rules, respondent No.1 raised<\/p>\n
objection but petitioner did not care for that objection. Hence<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 made a complaint to respondent No.2.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.2 was reluctant to take any action against<\/p>\n
petitioner in spite of a genuine complaint made by respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 and turned a Nelson’s eye to that complaint. Respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 has not taken        steps to prevent the alleged act.        In<\/p>\n
paragraph 8 of the plaint it is stated that since construction in<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property is without leaving adequate open<\/p>\n
space on its sides it is illegal and affected privacy, safety and<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
security of the Bank situated    in plaint A schedule.   It is also<\/p>\n
stated that free flow of air and light to the building in plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule is affected by the illegal construction in plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule.    That amounted to       a violation of civil rights of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 for enjoyment of its properties.<\/p>\n
      3.     No doubt, the Act and the Rules provide for taking<\/p>\n
action against unauthorised or illegal construction. Section 235W<\/p>\n
of the Act states that if construction has commenced without<\/p>\n
obtaining    permission of the Secretary or in contravention of<\/p>\n
decision of the Panchayat or is not in accordance with the plan or<\/p>\n
is in violation of permission granted it is within the power of<\/p>\n
Secretary to direct removal of such structure in the manner stated<\/p>\n
therein. Section 235X of the Act enables the Secretary to issue<\/p>\n
order stopping further construction.     Section 235W(5) enables<\/p>\n
the Government, if construction, re-construction or alteration of<\/p>\n
the building is against provisions of the Act or the Rules to direct<\/p>\n
the Secretary of local authority to cause demolition of such<\/p>\n
construction or re-construction as the case may be.<\/p>\n
      4.     Question is whether the said provisions expressly or<\/p>\n
impliedly ousted jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 9 of the<\/p>\n
Code enables civil court to entertain a suit of civil nature<\/p>\n
cognizance of which is not expressly or impliedly barred.<\/p>\n
Learned Senior Advocate has in all fairness concede that there is<\/p>\n
no provision in the Act and the Rules which expressly ousted<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                   -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction of civil court but contended that provisions of the Act<\/p>\n
and Rules impliedly barred civil court from         entertaining the<\/p>\n
suit. It is in that regard that reliance is placed on Thodupuzha<\/p>\n
Muncipality v. Abraham Philip<\/a> (supra). That was a case where<\/p>\n
building owner against whom Exts.A9 to A12 notices and orders<\/p>\n
were issued by the local authority filed a suit for injunction to<\/p>\n
restrain the local authority from       demolishing the        building<\/p>\n
pursuant to the said orders.     In the meantime plaintiff had also<\/p>\n
challenged the said orders before the statutory authority as<\/p>\n
referred to in the Act and Rules.        Jurisdiction of civil court to<\/p>\n
entertain the suit was contested by the local authority. This Court<\/p>\n
referring to the decisions in       Kamala Mills v. Bombay<\/p>\n
State (AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 1942), Ram Swarup V. Shikar<\/p>\n
Chand (AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 893), Shiv Kumar Chadha v.\n<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161) and<\/p>\n
Dhiru Green Field Ltd. V. Hukam Singh<\/a> (2002) 6 SCC<\/p>\n
416) held that civil court is not sitting in appeal over decision of<\/p>\n
the local authority (in issuing Ext.A9 to A12 orders) and that<\/p>\n
remedy of plaintiff was to challenge the said orders before proper<\/p>\n
authority under the Act and Rules.      Accordingly it was held that<\/p>\n
suit is impliedly barred.    It has to be remembered that there,<\/p>\n
challenge was to (Exts.A9 to A12) notices and the orders issued<\/p>\n
by local authority. Certainly, civil court was not sitting in appeal<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                   -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
over correctness of the notices and order of local authority as<\/p>\n
the local authority was competent to issue such notices and<\/p>\n
orders. In such a situation jurisdiction of the civil court was only<\/p>\n
to the extent of considering whether notices and orders were<\/p>\n
without authority, in violation of     statutory provisions and the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice. To grant the relief prayed for, one<\/p>\n
had to overcome those        notices and orders.        It is in the<\/p>\n
circumstances that this Court held that civil court has no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That decision or decisions relied<\/p>\n
on by this Court in that decision have no application to the facts<\/p>\n
of this case. Kamala Mills v. Bombay State’s<\/a> (supra)<\/p>\n
was a case where appellant-plaintiff sued for recovery of sales<\/p>\n
tax illegally collected by the taxing authorities. Section 13 of the<\/p>\n
Bombay Sales Tax Act expressly provided for refund of amount<\/p>\n
collected in excess of the amount actually due and proviso to<\/p>\n
Sec.13 of the Act provided        period of limitation for claiming<\/p>\n
refund. Section 21 of that Act provided for appeal while Sec.22<\/p>\n
provided for exercise of power of revision with the Government.<\/p>\n
Section 23A of that Act provided for rectification of mistakes.<\/p>\n
Section 20 of the Act stated that save as provided in Sec.20 no<\/p>\n
assessment made and no order passed under the Act or the rule<\/p>\n
made thereunder by the authorities referred to therein could be<\/p>\n
challenged in the civil court.     It followed that excess amount<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                  -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
which according to the appellant has collected as per order of<\/p>\n
the authority could not be challenged in the suit. In paragraph 14<\/p>\n
of the decision the Supreme Court observed that Sec.20 of the<\/p>\n
said Act protected not only assessment properly or correctly<\/p>\n
made or but even assessment which is not valid. It is in the<\/p>\n
circumstances that civil court was found to have no jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
entertain the suit. Ram Swarup Shikar Chand `s case (supra)<\/p>\n
is a case dealing with U.P(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction<\/p>\n
Act. That Act stated that a landlord could sue for eviction of a<\/p>\n
tenant only on proof of grounds mentioned therein and with the<\/p>\n
specific permission of the District Magistrate.        The District<\/p>\n
Magistrate refused to grant permission to the landlord.        But<\/p>\n
landlord    was  successful   in   getting  permission   from  the<\/p>\n
Commissioner in his revisional authority and on the strength of<\/p>\n
that authority sued the tenant for eviction.       Trial court and<\/p>\n
appellate court found that permission obtained by the landlord<\/p>\n
was valid and ordered eviction. The High Court however held that<\/p>\n
permission obtained from Commissioner was illegal land hence<\/p>\n
the suit is not maintainable. The suit was dismissed. Matter was<\/p>\n
taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred<\/p>\n
to the relevant provisions of that Act and held that permission<\/p>\n
given by the District Magistrate or Commissioner was beyond<\/p>\n
challenge in the civil court in view of Sec.16 of the said Act and<\/p>\n
held that civil court had no authority to decide upon validity of<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                 -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
permission granted by the Commissioner.           In Shiv Kumar<\/p>\n
Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Supra)<\/a> scope of<\/p>\n
Sec.9 of the Code was considered. It was held that a statute<\/p>\n
when created a right or liability and also provides a Forum for its<\/p>\n
enforcement ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be upheld on<\/p>\n
the finding that    rights and liabilities in question have been<\/p>\n
created by the Act without touching a pre-existing right    under<\/p>\n
common law. It was held that situation will be different where a<\/p>\n
statute purports to curb and curtail a pre-existing common law<\/p>\n
right and purports to oust the jurisdiction of the court so far as<\/p>\n
remedy against the orders passed under such statute is<\/p>\n
concerned.    In such cases courts have to be more vigilant while<\/p>\n
examining the question as to whether an adequate redressal<\/p>\n
machinery has been provided before which the person aggrieved<\/p>\n
may agitate his grievance. Dhiruv Green Field Ltd v. Kukam<\/p>\n
Singh’s<\/a> case (supra) relates to the Punjab Village Common<\/p>\n
Lands (Regulation) Act where Sec.13 read with Sec.10A of that Act<\/p>\n
barred jurisdiction of the civil Court.   These decisions have no<\/p>\n
application to the present case.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    The   Supreme    Court   in   Raja Ram Kumar<\/p>\n
Bhargava v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 752) has dealt<\/p>\n
with jurisdiction of civil court under Sec.9 of the Code and the<\/p>\n
circumstances under which it is ousted expressly            or by<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                  -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
implication.   It is held   that when a right not pre-existing in<\/p>\n
common law is provided in the statute and that statute prescribes<\/p>\n
a remedy for enforcement of that right, then, in the absence of<\/p>\n
an express bar jurisdiction of civil court is not ousted in that the<\/p>\n
right is not created by the statute for the first time. On the other<\/p>\n
hand a right not existing in common law is provided in the statute<\/p>\n
and it provides for enforcement of that right, then, even in the<\/p>\n
absence of an exclusionary provision jurisdiction of civil court is<\/p>\n
ousted    by necessary implication reason being         that right is<\/p>\n
created by the statute and     a machinery to enforce that right is<\/p>\n
also provided. In the present case right of an adjacent owner<\/p>\n
whether or not he has suffered damages on account of<\/p>\n
unauthorised construction to move the civil court to enforce the<\/p>\n
law in force is not a right created for the first time under the Act<\/p>\n
or the Rules. Instead, it is a right available to the adjacent owner<\/p>\n
in common law. That has been accepted by this Court in Saina<\/p>\n
v. Konderi<\/a> (1984           KLT 428) and P.S.Saseendran v.<\/p>\n
Vishwambharan & Others (2003 (1) KLJ 265).\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Yet another fact I must bear in mind is that in the<\/p>\n
present case challenge is not merely against violation of Rules.<\/p>\n
It is alleged   by respondent No.1 that construction in plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property affected security, privacy and safety of<\/p>\n
banking business conducted by respondent No.1 in plaint A<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                   -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule and that construction adversely affected free flow of air<\/p>\n
and light to the building in plaint A schedule.       Learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate has a contention that such allegations are connected<\/p>\n
with the allegation that building is constructed not in accordance<\/p>\n
with the provision of the Act and the Rules. But on a reading of<\/p>\n
the plaint I am unable to accept that contention. Even if it is<\/p>\n
assumed that respondent No.1 is not able to prove that<\/p>\n
construction of building is in violation of the Act and Rules if he<\/p>\n
is able to show that construction has affected free flow of air and<\/p>\n
light to the building in plaint A schedule civil court has to consider<\/p>\n
whether construction in plaint B schedule is liable to be removed.<\/p>\n
I notice     from    paragraph 1 of the plaint that building of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 plaint A schedule property has been in existence<\/p>\n
since 40 years.       In that case    civil court necessarily has to<\/p>\n
consider whether respondent No.1 has a right to get          free flow<\/p>\n
of air and light laterally also by way of prescription under Section<\/p>\n
15 or at least vertically as a natural right under Section 7 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Easements Act.       These matters are not required to be<\/p>\n
decided by the        authorities under the Act and the Rules.<\/p>\n
Therefore even if it is assumed that issue of         construction of<\/p>\n
building being against the provisions of the Act and Rules is a<\/p>\n
matter for decision     by the statutory authority, it is well within<\/p>\n
the power of the civil court to entertain the suit on allegations of<\/p>\n
infringement of right for free flow of air and light.          Hence<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                  -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
contention that suit is impliedly barred cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
      7.     Next contention is that by the doctrine of election<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 having         elected to seek redressal of his<\/p>\n
grievance before the statutory authorities he cannot turn round<\/p>\n
and choose a different Forum – the civil court. Reference is<\/p>\n
made to the representation dated 6.10.2006.         Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for respondent No.1 has given to me for perusal a photocopy of<\/p>\n
that   representation addressed to the Secretary of respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 where request is to pass appropriate orders to stay further<\/p>\n
constructions in plaint B schedule.      There is no request    for<\/p>\n
demolition of structure already put up. I also find from the copy<\/p>\n
of Writ Petition referred to above that it is alleged by respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 that Panchayat authorities are siding with petitioner in the<\/p>\n
matter of unauthorised construction in plaint B schedule. In the<\/p>\n
plaint it is averred by respondent No.1 that in spite of complaint<\/p>\n
(representation dated 6.10.2006 preferred to the local authority)<\/p>\n
no action has been taken by the local authority to redress<\/p>\n
grievance of     respondent No.1.    Therefore it is a case where<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 does not pursue his remedy before the statutory<\/p>\n
authorities for the reason that he does not expect to get relief<\/p>\n
from the said authorities.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     As regards the contention based on the doctrine of<\/p>\n
election of Forum learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
decisions in      Premier Automobiles v. K.S. Wadke and<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of<\/a> 2009
\n                                     -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rajasthan RTC v. Mohar Singh<\/a> (supra). In the former case the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court quoted from Neville v. London “Express”<\/p>\n
Newspaper (1919 AC 368) thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “There are three classes of cases in which a liability<\/p>\n
      may be established by statute. There is that class<\/p>\n
      where there is a liability existing at common law, and<\/p>\n
      which is only re-enacted by the statute with a special<\/p>\n
      form of remedy; there, unless the statute contains<\/p>\n
      words       necessarily   excluding   the  common    law<\/p>\n
      remedy, the plaintiff has his election of proceeding<\/p>\n
      either under the statute or at common law. Then<\/p>\n
      there is a second class, which consists of those cases<\/p>\n
      in which a statute has created a liability, but has<\/p>\n
      given no special remedy for it; there the party may<\/p>\n
      adopt an action of debt or other remedy at common<\/p>\n
      law to enforce it. The third class is where the statute<\/p>\n
      creates a liability not existing at common law, and<\/p>\n
      gives      also    a  particular  remedy   for  enforcing<\/p>\n
      it………….. With respect to that class it has always<\/p>\n
      been held, that the party must adopt the form of<\/p>\n
      remedy given by the statute”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Rajastrhan RTC v. Mohar Singh’s case (supra) was a case<\/p>\n
where jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a dispute which<\/p>\n
was otherwise required to be dealt with under the Industrial<\/p>\n
Disputes Act or connected law was considered.              Doctrine of<\/p>\n
election is        based on    principle of estoppel.   This Court in<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                 -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Canara Bank v. Thankappan<\/a> (1989 [2] KLT 74)<\/p>\n
considered the question whether a Bank having resorted to the<\/p>\n
remedy of revenue recovery for realisation of amount and failed in<\/p>\n
that attempt could institute a civil suit for recovery of the amount.<\/p>\n
Overruling the decision in Maniyan v. Federal Bank<\/a> (1988<\/p>\n
[2] KLT 922) which took the view that by the doctrine of election<\/p>\n
Bank is precluded from filing a civil suit the Division Bench held<\/p>\n
that principle of   estoppel by election would arise only in cases<\/p>\n
where the two courses of action available are mutually exclusive<\/p>\n
and the opposite party on the faith of representation by conduct<\/p>\n
or otherwise has acted to his detriment or has adopted a course<\/p>\n
of action which otherwise he would not have resorted to.<\/p>\n
Applying that principle I am not able to find that on account of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 making representation before            Secretary of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 requesting for stay of further construction in<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property either petitioner or respondent No.2<\/p>\n
has changed their position or acted to their detriment. Learned<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate would contend that it is on account of the said<\/p>\n
representation that petitioner was dragged into this Court and<\/p>\n
he had to suffer loss on account of that. But that is not a change<\/p>\n
of position for applying the principle. As such the contention that<\/p>\n
by electing to make representation before the local authority<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 has forfeited his right to move the civil court<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.596 of 2009
\n                                   -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be accepted.      I do not find reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
finding of court below that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.<\/p>\n
      Civil Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed.<\/p>\n
      Interlocutory Application No.3267 of 2009 shall stand<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 596 of 2009() 1. VINCENT MATHEW(CORRECT NAME IS … Petitioner Vs 1. POTHANICADU FARMER’S CO-OPERATIVE … Respondent 2. THE POTHANICADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer'S ... on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer'S ... on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-14T06:15:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-14T06:15:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":3470,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer'S ... on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-14T06:15:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer'S ... on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer'S ... on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-14T06:15:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-14T06:15:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2"},"wordCount":3470,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2","name":"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer'S ... on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-14T06:15:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vincent-mathewcorrect-name-is-vs-pothanicadu-farmers-on-8-june-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vincent Mathew(Correct Name Is vs Pothanicadu Farmer’S … on 8 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148739","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}