IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3796 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.44/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. MOHANAN, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, NADA VADAKKATHIL, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 2. THYAGARAJAN, S/O. KOCHUNARAYANAN, NADA VADAKKATHIL, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. PERATHERIL FAMILY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, SHYAMALAYAM, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 2. VADAKKAMKOVIL BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY PERATHERIL FAMILY MEMBER AND WORSHIPPER GOPAKUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN, PERATHERIL, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK OP(C).No. 3796 of 2011(O) ------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------ EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.44/09 DTD.24.2.09 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD.22.6.09 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 IN THE SUIT OS NO.44/09, MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF IA NO.1977/11 IN OS NO.44/09, MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA, DTD.3.11.2011. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.11.2011 IN IA NO.1977/ 2011 IN OS NO.44/09, MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.11.2011 IN OS NO.44/09 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3796 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.44 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara. That is a suit filed by the respondents for a declaration that order of the Land Tribunal, Cherthala dated 26.06.2003 in S.M. No.108 of 1998 and the consequent sale certificate issued on 17.09.2003 are null and void being without jurisdiction, for declaration of title of respondents/plaintiffs over plaint schedule properties and for its recovery of possession from petitioners and 1st defendant (who is no more). Petitioners and 1st defendant filed written statement contending that the suit property comes under the Kerala Service Inam Land Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act 17 of 1981 (in short, “the Act”) and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there is an express bar. Learned Munsiff framed additional issue regarding jurisdiction of the court as per Ext.P4, order but refused to consider that issue as a preliminary issue as per Ext.P5, order as the case itself is posted for trial in the list on 25.11.2011. Ext.P5, order is under challenge. Learned counsel invited my attention to the various provisions of the Act to contend that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. OP(C)No.3796/2011 2 2. Since learned Munsiff has not gone into the question of maintainability of the suit it is not necessary for me to go into that question in this proceeding. 3. It is seen that the suit is of the year, 2009 and though petitioners claimed to have filed written statement in June, 2009 the request to frame additional issue regarding jurisdiction was made only by I.A.No.1977 of 2011 (ie. almost after two years of filing the written statement) and the request to decide preliminary issue is made at a time when the suit itself is posted for trial in the list on 25.11.2011. If the issue is considered as a preliminary issue at this stage that would only prolong the further proceedings in the suit. Instead, the suit could be tried as per law and as directed in Ext.P5, order and all the questions including question of maintainability could be decided. In that view of the matter, I do not find reason to interfere with the matter. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks