IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1246 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------------------- [ARISING FROM THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.(C).NO.3078/2011 DATED 28/09/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT] .................... PETITIONER/4TH PETITIONER IN O.P(C): ---------------------------------------------------------- DIVAKARAN KITAN,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KITAN,MANNANETH,EREZHA,VADAKKUMURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.R.REJI, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN, SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR. RESPONDENT/IST RESPONDENT IN THE W.P(C): ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RAMAN RAGHAVAN,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN,VALLIATHU VEETTIL,PELA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,FROM MANNANETHU EREZHA, VADAKUMMURI,KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,KANNAMANGALAM (PO),ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690109. BY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CONT. CASE (C).NO.1246/2011-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE.I: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.398/1988 DT.27/3/1991 OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT AT MAVELIKKARA. ANNEXURE.II: TRUE COPY OF I.A.2504/2003 IN O.S.398/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT AT MAVELIKKARA. ANNEXURE-III:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.03.08.2011 I.A.2504/2003 IN O.S.NO.398/1988 OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT AT MAVELIKKARA. ANNEXURE-IV:TRUE COPY OF THE TYPEWRITTEN EXTRACT OF THE ORDER BY THE EXECUTING COURT ORDERING DELIVERY IN EXECUTION PETITION VIDE E.P.NO.99/1999 DATED 25.8.2011. ANNEXURE-V: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.28.09.2011 IN O.P(C)NO.3078/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE-VI: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.12.11.2011. ANNEXURE-VII: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DT.24.10.2011 IN E.A.NO.130/2011 IN E.P.NO.99/1999 IN O.S.NO.398/1988 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT AT MAVELIKKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.1246 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, respondent has committed contempt of this Court by cutting, removing and selling the standing timber from the disputed property in violation of the judgment of this Court. 2. Petitioner and others filed O.P.(C) No.3078 of 2011 in this Court challenging the order of delivery of property in E.P.No.99 of 1999 in O.S.No.398 of 1988 of the court of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara. Petitioner and others claimed to be legal representatives of the 8th defendant who died before passing the decree. Learned counsel contended that petitioner and others are entitled to the share of deceased 8th defendant and that property ordered to be delivered takes in property of deceased 8th defendant also. This Court repelled the contention of petitioners. It was pointed out that petitioner and others have filed A.S.No.171 of 2011 challenging the order refusing to pass a supplementary preliminary decree. In view of that, it was directed that delivery of property as per the impugned order shall be subject to the result of that appeal to the extent decision in the appeal affected delivery. Respondent was directed not to alienate or encumber the property for a period of two months from 28.09.2011. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that during the said period of two months respondent cut and removed standing timber from the disputed property. According to the learned counsel standing timber forms part of immovable property and hence by cutting and removal of the standing timber Cont.Case(C) No.1246/2011 2 petitioner has violated the order of this Court not to alienate the property. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Joseph v. Annamma Joseph (1979 KLT S.N.31 – Case No.61). 4. The decision relied on by the petitioner is in support of the plea that standing timber forms part of immovable property. Assuming so, question now to be considered is whether respondent has committed contempt of this Court. This Court directed respondent not to alienate or encumber the property for a period of two months from the date of the judgment or till the appellate court passes orders in A.S.No.171 of 2011 whichever is earlier. This Court did not specifically state anything about the cutting and removal of standing timber. It is not possible to interpret an order based on decisions and say that by cutting and removal of standing timber, respondent has committed contempt. Viewed in that line I am unable to accept that respondent has committed contempt requiring this Court to proceed in the matter further. Leaving petitioner to work out appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum on account of alleged cutting and removal of trees, this contempt proceeding is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks