IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 204 of 2008() --------------------- ORDER IN I.A. 2926/07 IN OS.70/2007 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1/DEFENDANT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- VELIYAMBRA RAVEENDRAN S/O.MADHAVI, VELIYAMBRA HOUSE P.O.NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/ PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 & 3: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VELIYAMBRA PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O.MADHAVI, VELIYAMBRA HOUSE P.O.NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. VELIYAMBRA ASHOKAN, S/O. MADHAVAI VELIYAMBRA HOUSE, P.O.NARATH, NARATH AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT AT PRESENT MEMTRO PACIFIC APPARELS 1877/5,18 FEET ROAD, 2ND BLOCK,ABR LAYOUT KALYAN NAGAR P.O.,BANGALORE-43 3. VELIYAMBRA PRAKASHAN, S/O.MADHAVI VELIYAMBRA HOUSE, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT . ADDL. R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED. 4. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL SULFEEKER, S/O. ABDULLA, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALUK, K.P. HOUSE, ALLAMKULAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 142. 5. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL JABEER, S/O. ABDULLLA, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALUK, K.P. HOUSE, ALLAMKULAM. P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 142. 6. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL MUHAMMED, SHUHUD ABDULLA, S/O, ABDULLA, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALUK, K.P. HOUSE, ALLAMKULAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 142. ADDL.R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8.5.2009 IN I.A. 1527/2009. ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R3 SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL FOR R1 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN(CONCILIATOR) SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR ADDL.R4-6 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR ADDL.R4-6 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR ADDL.R4-6 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR ADDL.R4-6 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR ADDL.R4-6 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR ADDL.R4-6 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 204 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, In a suit for partition claiming one fourth share, the plaintiff moved an application, I.A. 2926 of 2007 in O.S. No.70 of 2007 seeking an interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from alienating or altering the nature of the property or from inducting third party interest in the property. The respondents resisted the petition. The main contention of the first respondent was that the properties were self acquired properties of the first respondent and therefore none had any right over the properties. Even if any alienation is made during the pendency of the suit, such alienations are hit by principle of lis pendence. Pointing out that the petitioner before the court below had no manner of right over the suit properties, respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition. FAO. 204/2008. 2 2. The court below on a consideration of the materials before it came to the conclusion that the petitioner had established a prima facie case in his favour and accordingly granted interim injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved, the first respondent before the court below has come up in appeal. 3. In this appeal additional respondents 4 to 6 were impleaded as per order dated 8.5.2009 in I.A. 1527 of 2009. 4. There are 26 items of properties involved in the suit. The main contention of the first respondent was that the properties are self acquired properties and no one else had any manner of right over the same. Another contention raised was that at best what is available for partition is items 1 and 6, though in fact the plaintiff has no manner of right over the same. It is contended by the appellant that items 2 to 5 and 7 to 26 are his exclusive properties. Appellant filed I.A. 4341 of 2008 before this court seeking to alienate item Nos.7 to 26, which according to him was his self acquired properties. He sought to sell those properties in FAO. 204/2008. 3 order to wipe off his liabilities to financial institutions. It is seen that the application was not opposed and therefore he was permitted to sell items 7 to 26, provided it is otherwise permissible in law. It appears that those items were alienated by additional respondents 4 to 6. In a subsequently filed I.A. 1526 of 2009 those additional respondents were restrained from making any further construction in the property covered by sale deed No.4158/2008 of S.R.O. Kannur for a period of one month. 5. Learned additional respondents 4 to 6 pointed out that since huge amount of money has been spent for acquiring the property, and for the construction already made, they may be allowed to continue the construction at their risk and cost and subject to the result of the suit. 6. The request seems to be a reasonable one and other respondents did not object to the same. In the result, this appeal is disposed of by observing that the construction, if any, made by respondents 4 to 6 will be at their FAO. 204/2008. 4 risk and cost and will be subject to the result of the suit. It is also made clear that additional respondents 4 to 6 before this court shall not be entitled to claim any special right on the basis of the construction made by them during the pendency of the suit. There will be no order as to costs. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.