IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3736 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- CMA.108/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.144/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- FOUZIA BEEGAM, DAUGHTER OF MOHAMMED ALI, PARADISE, PALAMOODU, VEMBAYAM, THEKKADA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.C.PRABITHA RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------------- MYTHEEN PICHA, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, T.C.32/267/2 PANAYIL VEEDU, KOCHI VELI, KARIKKAKAM MURI, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE,KODALY PO,THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.3736 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.144 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The said suit is one for specific performance of an agreement styled as a sale deed. According to the plaintiff, it is only a security document evidencing a loan transaction. On the face of the document produced as Ext.P1, it is a purported sale deed where the possession has been delivered over to the defendant. The plaintiff would contend that he continues to be in possession of the property and on that basis he wanted interim injunction against trespass by the defendants and others. Even though the trial court granted an interim injunction as prayed for, the lower appellate court in appeal confined the injunction to one restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property or creating any document with respect to the same in favour of the strangers till the disposal of the suit. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this petition. W.P.(c)No.3736 of 2010 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he has produced several documents evidencing his possession of the plaint schedule property, notwithstanding the purported sale deed and that the document is only a security document evidencing a loan transaction. 3. It is too early to accept the said contention which runs counter to the apparent tenure of the document. Whether the document is only a loan transaction or is an outright sale is a matter to be proved during trial. The lower appellate court was fully justified in confining the injunction to one against alienation and creating any documents. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj