IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7759 of 2008(W) ------------------------- CMA.17/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- K.C.SAJEEVAN,W/O. CHAMI, RESIDING AT KADAMKURISSI, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.T.C.SURESH MENON, MR.JIBU P THOMAS, MR.P.S.APPU. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SUNITHA, WIDOW OF RAJEEVAN,RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEEDU, VENNAKKARA, NURANI P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. NARAYANAN,S/O. CHAMI, RESIDING AT KADAMKURISSI, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. K.C.JANARDHANAN,S/O.CHAMI, RESIDING AT KADAMKURISSI, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SASEEVAN ALIAS SASI, S/O. ARU, RESIDING AT CHAKKUPARAMU KALAM,NENMENI, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7759/2008 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.62/2005 IN O.S.NO.15/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR DTD. 29/01/2005. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.17/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE OF PALAKKAD DTD. 29/10/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.P.C No.7759 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S No.15/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chittur. The above suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents, codefendants with the petitioner herein. A decree of injunction was claimed in respect of four items of property. Plaintiff laid the suit claiming that the plaint items were originally owned by her late husband and on his death the property devolved on her, the children and also the mother of her husband. Respondents 2 to 4 are the sister and brothers of her late husband. Imputing threat of trespass from the defendants, she canvassed for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against them. An application for interim injunction was also moved by the plaintiff seeking an identical relief as canvassed in the suit till its disposal. That application was resisted by the defendants by filing objections. The defendants contented that their mother had assigned her ¼th right which had devolved upon her on the death of her son Rajeevan, the husband of the plaintiff, in favour of the defendants, and so much so, they are coowners entitled to be joint possession of the property. It was further W.P.C No.7759 OF 2008 Page numbers contended that plaint item No.1 and 2 had been purchased in the name of late Rajeevan with the funds from the joint business conducted by late Rajeevan with them. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides granted an order of interim injunction only in respect of plaint item No.3 and 4 about which no dispute was raised by the defendants. In respect of item No.1 and 2 the relief of interim injunction claimed by the plaintiff was declined. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against that part of the order declining the relief of interim injunction in respect of item No.1 and 2 before the District Court, Palakkad. The learned District Judge after hearing both sides modified the order of the court below and allowed the interim injunction in toto as applied by the plaintiff. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing Ext.P2 judgment impugned I find no jurisdictional infirmity warranting any interference. At the time of hearing, it has been brought to notice that the suit is now ripe for trial and so much so, a detailed consideration of the merit of the judgment impugned in the appeal is quite unnecessary. Having regard to the nature of the dispute involved as between close relatives, I find an expeditious W.P.C No.7759 OF 2008 Page numbers disposal of the suit at the earliest to give a quietus to the whole controversy is the need of the hour. So much so, there will be a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in his order or in Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv