IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7336 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ CMA.63/2009 of DISTRICT COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OS.543/2009 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IA 2641/09) .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- JANAKI SAIRANDHRI, D/O. PADMANABHANSANKARAN, EROTTUKONATHU VEEDU ANAMUGHAM, VENPALAVATTOM, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TC 14/141, ANAMUGHATHU VEEDU,VENPALAVATTOM ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.BIJISH B.TOM MR.VIPIN P.VARGHESE SMT.A.KARTHIKA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SATHYADAS, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT TC 32/228, VIDHU BHVAN, OPP. OLD KOCHUVELI RAILWAY STATION, KRIKKAKOM MURI, TITANIUM.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KARTHIYANI VISALAKSHI, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O. LATE VASUDEVAN,RESIDING AT TC 32/228, VIDHU BHAVAN, OPP: OLD KOCHUVELI RAILWAY STATION KARIKKAKOM MURI, TITANIUM.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MADHAI JANAKI, AGED 95 YEARS, VATTAL MADUMBIL VEEDU, KARIKKAKAM VILLAGE, BEACH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JANAKI SAKUNTHALA, AGED 76 YEARS, VATTAL MADUMBIL VEEDU, KARIKKAKAM VILLAGE BEACH.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SANKARAN SOMADHARMAN, AGED 70 YEARS, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE,D/NO./650/28, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, COCHIN-36. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.7336 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 8th March 2010 Judgment In this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 16.12.2009 in CMA Nos.63/09 & 64/09 on the files of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram confirming the order dt.8.7.2009 in IA 2641/09 in OS No.543/09 and IA No.3139/09 in OS 541/09 on the files of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit as OS No.543/09 before the First Additional Munsiff's Court, seeking partition and also for a declaration that the two documents involved in the suit are not binding on the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed IA No.2641/09 for interim injunction. Defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed IA No.3139/09, seeking to restrain the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. After hearing WPC 7336/10 2 both sides, the Court below dismissed IA No.2641/09 filed by the petitioner and allowed IA No.3139/09 filed by the respondents for interim injunction. Aggrieved by the orders of the Munsiff's Court, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal as CMA Nos.63/2009 and 64/09 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Appellate Court, after elaborate consideration of the materials before it, came to the same conclusion as that of the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals with costs. The said order is assailed in this Petition. 3. The case of the petitioner was that the property originally belonged to one Bhargavi Pillai Thankachi. From her, the petitioner's father had taken possession of the plaint schedule property. While so, Smt.Bhargavi Pillai Thankachi sold the plaint schedule property to one Mr.Bennet Fernandez. Though a sale deed was executed in favour of the said person, the petitioner's father continued to be in possession of the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, the petitioner's father filed OA WPC 7336/10 3 No.255/73 before the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram for purchase of jenmam right. The tribunal dismissed the OA. Against the said order, the petitioner's father filed AA No.184/80 before the Appellate Authority, which was ultimately allowed. There was yet another round of litigations between the parties regarding the issue. 4. On going through the orders passed by the Court below, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order. This Writ Petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed subject to the direction that the Court below shall take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 7336/10 4 WPC 7336/10 5