IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23456 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- CMA.16/2009 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THIDIT BHASKARAN, S/O.KUNHATHI AMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT EZHILODE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, (PO) EZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KALLARA VALAPPIL NARAYANAN, S/O. MATHI AMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKUMBAD, (P.O) RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ARUMADI YASODA, W/O. KALLARA VALAPPIL NARAYANAN AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKUMBAD, (P.O.)RAMANTHIALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R1-2 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R1-2 SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA FOR R1-2 SRI.T.K.SANDEEP FOR R1-2 SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR FOR R1-2 SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO. 23456 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 2009 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Payyannur. That is a suit for prohibitory injunction filed against respondents trespassing into the suit property and committing waste. Petitioner filed I.A.No.570 of 2009 and prayed for an order of temporary injunction in the same line. According to the petitioner, he purchased the suit property from the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 as per Ext.P11, sale deed dated 4.2.1985. Though, in that assignment deed eastern boundary of the property assigned to the petitioner is stated as rest of property of respondent No.1, there is no such property belonging to respondent No.1 on the east, petitioner contended. Respondents resisted the suit contending that they have property of the east of property covered by Ext.P11, sale deed. They also claimed possession of the said property. Both sides produced the relevant documents in the trial court which found a prima facie case in favour of petitioner and allowed I.A. No. 570 of 2009. Respondents challenged that order in C.M.A.No.16 of 2009. Learned Sub Judge by Ext.P7, judgment reversed the order of learned Munsiff on I.A.No.570 of 2009 and W.P(C).NO. 23456 OF 2010 2 dismissed that application. The judgment in C.M.A.No.16 of 2009 is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is sufficient evidence to show that the disputed property belongs to and is in the possession of petitioner and hence, learned Sub Judge was not correct in reversing the order on I.A.No.570 of 2009. At any rate, respondent ought to have been injunction from committing waste in the disputed property. Learned counsel for respondents contend that even the document produced by petitioner is sufficient to show that there is land belonging to respondent No.1 on the east after assigning property covered by Ext.P11, and hence learned Sub Judge is correct dismissing I.A.No. 570 of 2009. 2. It appears from the contention raised by the parties that there is dispute regarding title and possession of the disputed property. In Ext.P11, assignment deed in favour of petitioner what is assigned to him is 3 acres out of 3.10 acres and the eastern boundary of the said 3 acres is described as rest of property of respondent No.1. It is in the circumstances that learned Sub Judge reversed the order on I.A. No.570 of 2009. I stated that there is dispute regarding title and possession of the disputed property which the trial court is to resolve as it arises from the pleadings after trial of the suit. It is not W.P(C).NO. 23456 OF 2010 3 necessary for this Court to interfere with the finding entered by the learned Sub Judge in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, I make it clear that the observations and findings made by the courts below will be confined to the disposal of I.A.No.570 of 2009 and that issues arising in the suit shall be decided by the trial court untrammeled by the observations or findings in the said order or judgment. 3. So far as prayer of petitioner that respondents may be directed no commit of waste in the suit property is concerned, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that there are no improvements in the disputed property. Learned counsel on both sides have referred me to Ext.P3, report of the advocate commissioner. What is necessary is to direct parties not to alter the present condition of the disputed property until disposal of the suit. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the parties not to alter the present condition of the disputed property until disposal of the suit. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm