IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 29520 of 2007(L) --------------------------------------- CMA.76/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.241/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ GRACEMMA THOMAS, ADVOCATE, VASANTHA BUILDING, ATHANI LANE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MNRA 70, MYTHRI NAGAR, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (PLOT NO.6, THILAK NAGAR, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT: --------------------- KOMALAM, D/O. SARASWATHY AMMA, TC 50/882, KOVILVILAKOM, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29520.2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 241/2007 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUCTION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME DT. 3.4.2007 FILED BEFORE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED AGAINST IA NO.2095/07 ALONG WITH ORDER 39/ RULE 4 PETITION. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN IS. 241/2007. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IA. 2095/07 IN OS. NO.241/07 DT. 5.6.2007. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT DT. 13.8.2007 IN CMA. 76/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 29520 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in CMA 76/07. The first Court namely the trial court granted an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the respondents from creating any documents with regard to the plaint schedule property or from inducting strangers therein or committing any acts of waste in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff is claiming title and possession over 1.5 cents of property which according to her was gifted to her by her mother. Here case is that thereafter she started constructing a building and for the said purpose she required some amount and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was advanced on execution of a registered agreement in favour of the 2nd defendant and later an assignment deed in favour of the very same person and all these transactions were effected only as W.P.C 29520 OF 2007 -:2:- a security for the purpose of giving loan and there was understanding that even if there is a document it will be reconveyed. It is also contended that subsequently the 2nd defendant has transferred his right in favour of the first defendant. The whole case of the plaintiff is denied by the defendants and defendants would contend all the documents are valid and substantial documents and the plaintiff has lost her title and possession by virtue of execution of those documents. The Courts below on a consideration of the materials available held that further things are to be looked in to in this case and as the matter requires detailed consideration and as the property has to be preserved passed an order of injunction whereby an order of injunction has been passed as stated earlier. I feel sitting in this Article 227 jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere with such an order for the reason that a reading of the order would reveal that there is an arguable case and the Courts below has only imposed a restriction so as to preserve the property as on the date of suit. Therefore I decline to invoke the jurisdiction W.P.C 29520 OF 2007 -:3:- under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and confirm the findings of the Courts below. The matter requires urgent consideration for the reason that an earlier adjudication on merits is necessary. Therefore I direct the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order after affording equal opportunities to both the sides to adduce evidence and produce documents and in case of any amendment to consider that amendment application as well. It is also made clear that the Court shall dispose of the matter untrammeled by the observations contained in its own order or in the order in CMA or by the observations made by this Court in this judgment and dispose it of in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-