IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No. 112 of 2010 ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2010 IN IA 8601/2009 IN OS.1016/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- KURIAKOSE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O CHAKKRAMAKKIL LONAPPAN, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD AMSOM, -DO- TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANTO, S/O CHAKRAMAKKIL THOMAS, RESIDING AT PALUVAI ROAD, PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD VILLAGE, DO TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SINI, W/O ANTO, RESIDING AT PALUVAI ROAD, PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD VILLAGE, DO TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ F. A. O. No.112 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Sri.Manju Antoney, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail on the various grounds raised in the appeal. The appeal is directed against an order of injunction passed in favour of the appellant restraining the respondents who are defendants in the suit from creating any documents, title or interest with respect to the plaint schedule property or incurring further encumbrances as if the defendants are owners of the land. The grievance of the appellant is that the court below did not F. A. O. No.112 of 2010 -2- allow the appellant's petition for injunction in full. According to the learned counsel, the respondents should have been restrained from occupying the building which they had put up on the property. According to the learned counsel, the respondents were permitted to complete the construction of the building on the basis of another I.A. in which their claim was only that they be permitted to complete the construction. Now under the present order, the court below has permitted them to occupy the building. This is not proper or fair. 2. We have gone through the impugned order. It is very clear to us that at the time of institution of the suit, the respondents were in possession of the plaint schedule property and F. A. O. No.112 of 2010 -3- had started construction of the residential building. It was obviously taking into account that circumstance, that the court below became inclined to permit the respondents to complete the construction of the building. The order permitting respondents to complete the construction of building has become final. According to us, it is on equitable considerations that the court below refused to pass an order restraining the respondents from occupying the building. The main relief sought for in the suit is cancellation of the document of title under which the respondents are claiming title as well as possession over the property. According to us, the court below was right in taking the view that till such time as the F. A. O. No.112 of 2010 -4- main relief is not granted, it is not proper to restrain the respondents from occupying the building. In short, we do not find any warrant for interference with the impugned judgment. 3. We dismiss this appeal. However, we make it clear that all the findings and observations contained in the impugned order have been made by the court below only for the purpose of the interlocutory application. Decision will be taken in the suit on the basis of the evidence that is adduced by the parties in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge will not be influenced unduly by the observations and findings in the impugned order. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed F. A. O. No.112 of 2010 -5- to ensure that the suit is disposed of early and at any rate, within six months of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-