IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 186 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1198 2006 IN OS.139/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------- LEELA, W/O.N.M.RAJAN, RADHAMANDIRAM, HOUSE NO.XXXIX/1325, JAWAHAR NAGAR, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI SRI.B.VINOD SMT.V.JISHA RANI RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUBHADRA, W/O.SIVANANDAN, GEETHA MANDIRAM, KOIVILA.P.O, KOLLAM. 2. RADHAMMA, W/O.SREENIVASAN, 'RESMI', PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 3. SARASAMMA, W/O.RAGHUDEVAN, ROMESH VILLA, KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 4. VALSALA, W/O.SOMARAJAN, 'SREEPRIYA', THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. 5. LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, LEKSHMI VILASAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R2 TO 4 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 186 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Appeal by the plaintiff against an order dismissing an application for temporary injunction. The suit is one for partition. It is contended that the petitioner is having absolute possession over plaint A schedule property, and there is a threat of being dispossessed forcibly at the instance of the defendant, and hence they be restrained by an order of injunction. Contesting defendants on the other hand contended that the plaintiff has no title or possession in respect of plaint A schedule property and it is absolutely vested with the second defendant by virtue of a gift deed executed by her father and she is in possession. Second respondent contended that she alone is entitled to the property and hence the plaintiff cannot be granted any injunction as prayed for. Exts.A1 to A12 were the documents marked on the side of the plaintiff and Exts.B1 to B12 were on the side of the defendants. Ext.A1 is the sale deed, by which late Raghavan purchased the FAO. 186/2006.. 2 property from one Kesavan and Ext.A2 is the gift deed by Raghavan in favour of the second defendant. Ext.A3 is the sale deed, by which Raghavan and Lekshmi purchased plaint C schedule property. Ext.A4 is the sale deed by which Raghavan purchased plaint B schedule property. Ext.A5 is the sale deed by which Raghavan purchased 15 sq.links of land in Sy.No.3125 of Chavara Village from one Kutty. Ext.A6 is a sale deed evidencing purchase of 11and a half cents by Lekshmi. Ext.A7 is yet another sale deed by which Lakshmi and Raghavan purchased 10 cents of property in Chavara Village from one Sivaraman Pillai. Ext.A9is the photocopy of ration card. Ext.A10 is the sale deed by which Raghavan and Lekshmi purchased 5 cents of property in Sy.No. 4680 of Chavara Village. Exts.A11 and A12 are ration cards. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the joint will executed by Raghavan and Lekshmi in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Ext.B2 is the photocopy of the partition deed between Raghavan and Lekshmi. Ext.B4 is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Anandan. Exts.B5 and B6 are the tax receipts. Ext.B7 is the building tax receipt. Ext.B8 is the photocopy of the property tax receipt. The FAO. 186/2006.. 3 court below found that the case of the plaintiff that she is in possession of the property is not supported by any documents. Though various improvements were said to have been made by the plaintiff, that is also not supported by any evidence. After analysing the evidence on record, the court below found that the plaintiff has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to support his case and injunction was refused, against which the present appeal is filed. 2. No interim injunction was granted by this court. The matter was pending before this court for over three years. At this distance of time, we do not think that temporary injunction could be granted or is it necessitated to sub serve the main relief sought for in the suit. There is no justification to change the status quo as on the date of filing of the appeal. If there is any imminent threat as was alleged in the plaint, the appellant would have moved and pressed for some interim relief, which however was not granted by this court. Therefore, the only direction that is called for is to expedite the trial of the suit and dispose of the same, if not already disposed of, untramelled or uninfluenced by the prima facie observations contained in the order FAO. 186/2006.. 4 under appeal. We do so. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.