IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 FAO.No. 255 of 2008 ------------------ (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/08/2008 IN IA. 3324 /2008 IN OS.607/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ) APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: --------------------------------------------- 1. C. ANTONY, S/O. CHELLAKANNU, T.C. 14/1489(2) ASWATHY BHAVAN, PARIS ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FLOBY MOHAN, W/O. LATE MOHAN, NELLAMON VILLA, KUZHIVILAKOM, VALIYATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SANOJ MOHAN, S/O. LATE MOHAN, NELLAMON VILLA, KUZHIVILAKOM, VALIYATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SAYONA MOHAN, S/O. LATE MOHAN, NELLAMON VILLA, KUZHIVILAKOM, VALIYATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. C.SUDHA JOSE, W/O. JOSE, PANAPURATHU VEEDU, T.C.26/903, CHEMPAKA NAGAR, H.NO. 114, PANAVILA JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. C. SUGUNA SOOSADIMA, W/O. SOOSADIMA, “SHRUTHI”, T.C. 26/807-1, CHEMPAKA NAGAR, BAKERY JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE JOB, S/O. AGUSTIAN GEORGE, T.C. 26/807, “THRIPTHI”, CHEMPAKA NAGAR, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MARY MAGDALINA, D/O. RETNAMMA CHELLAKANNU, “THRIPTHI”, H.NO. 40, BAKERY JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. C. PRIYA, W/O. SEBASTIAN, RATNAVILASOM, PARIS ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SEBASTIAN, S/O. JOSEPH GORNALIF OF -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ........................................................................ F.A.O. No. 255 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 14th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T K.T. Sankaran, J: This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 607 of 2008 on the file of the court of the II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order dated 28th August, 2008 in I.A.No. 3324 of 2008, by which the court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the document executed by Rathnamma Chellakannu is not a valid document and for consequential injunction. Rathnamma Chellakannu was not made a party to the suit. The plaintiffs stated that for the last 15 years Rathnamma Chellakannu was not in a sound state of mind and that the document in question is not a valid document. The application was opposed by the F.A.O. No. 255 OF 2008 2 respondents. They pointed out that during the last 15 years, mentioned by the plaintiffs, several documents were executed by Rathnamma Chellakannu, out of which some of the documents are in favour of some of the plaintiffs. The court below noticed all these aspects and came to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs and that the 'balance of convenience' is not in favour of granting temporary injunction. Hence the court below vacated the temporary injunction already granted. 3. The court below also noticed that an attempt was made by the plaintiffs to mislead the court and that true facts were not brought to the notice of the court. On those findings, the court below not only dismissed the application for temporary injunction but also awarded compensatory cost of Rs.3,000/-. 4. After having heard the counsel on either side in detail, the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that they are very much aggrieved by the order passed by the court below awarding compensatory costs. We are of the view that, that part of the order granting compensatory costs can be F.A.O. No. 255 OF 2008 3 vacated. For the aforesaid reasons, the F.A.O. is partly allowed and the direction to pay compensatory costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) is vacated. The order impugned is confirmed in all other respects. It is also made clear that the suit shall be disposed of untrammelled by the observations and findings in the order impugned. The trial court shall expedite the disposal of the suit. I.A.No.4287 of 2008 filed in this Appeal is also disposed of. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk