IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8601 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- CMA.52/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR AROSE OUT OF THE ORDER IN IA 918/07 IN OS.271/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MICHEL, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.ITTEERA, PANAKKAL, GOTHURUTH, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI SRI.P.H.RISHAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SEBASTIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KALLUNGAL GEORGE, MANAKKODAM MURI, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. 2. MARY SEBASTIAN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SEBASTIAN, -DO- BY ADV. M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 8601 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, North Parur in C.M.A.No.52/07. The said C.M.A. was preferred against the order in I.A.No.918/07 in O.S.No.271/07 of the Munsiff’s Court, Parur. 2. It was a suit filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant in the suit from alienating the property without his consent as per the recitals in the document dated 13.10.1983. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and granted an order, but the appellate court held that it amounts an absolute restriction on alienation which is not legally sustainable and therefore, vacated the order of injunction. 3. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the case for the reason that any expression made by me may have impact on the final result in the case. I had gone through the document. The documents recites that the property is settled in favour of the defendant. There is also a clause whereby the property has to be kept in tact without alienation during the life time of the WPC 8601/2008 2 parents. Subsequently it is stated that there are two elders, one uncle and one brother-in-law whose consent is also necessary for transfer during their life time. It is that clause which comes up for interpretation in deciding the case. I make it clear that a time bound disposal is necessary for the reason that there is difficulty for the defendant in protracting the matter as his daughter’s marriage is to take place. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition as follows and the respondent in the writ petition is not to alienate the property till a decision is taken in the suit and further direct the Munsiff, North Parur to permit the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the matter, if possible, before the summer holidays and at any rate on or before 31.5.2008. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl