IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21991 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.8/2009 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA IA NO.790/2008 IN OS.371/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAUL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.POTTEPARAMBIL THOMAS, THANISSERY DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VARGHESE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KACHAPPILLY SOURIAR, THANISSERY DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK-691585. 2. MARY, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.KACHAPPILLY VARGHESE, THANISSERY DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-691 585. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.21995/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.21991 & 21995 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT These petitions arise from common judgment in C.M.A.Nos.8 and 9 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda confirming common order on I.A.No.790 and 1351 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kodungallur. Petitioner sued respondents for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespassing into his property and filed I.A.No.790 of 2008 for an order of temporary injunction. Respondents claimed that petitioner has obstructed the flow of water through a thodu running through the suit property and that has resulted in stagnation of water in the property of respondents and the locality causing inconvenience to them. Respondents filed I.A.No.1351 of 2008 for a mandatory injunction to direct petitioner to remove obstruction from the thodu allegedly run through suit property. Learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No.790 of 2008 and allowed I.A.No.1351 of 2008. That common order was challenged in C.M.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2009. Common judgment in C.M.Appeals are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that finding of courts below has virtually resulted in granting a decree in favour of respondents. It is the contention of learned counsel that at any ate neither Panchayat Authorities or Revenue Divisional Authorities had any authority to interfere in the matter since dispute involved is a private dispute between petitioner and respondents.. There was no such thodu and that there are other WP(C) No.21991 & 21995/2010 2 sources to drain out water collected in the property of respondents. Learned counsel in fairness conceded that order on I.A.No.1351 of 2008 has already been carried out and alleged obstruction in the thodu has been removed. 2. So far as disposal of I.A.Nos.790 and 1351 of 2008 is concerned what is required is only prima facie evidence and that is satisfied by the report of Advocate Commissioner marked Ext.C1 in the trial court. It is based on Ext.C1 courts below found that there is obstruction to the thodu through property of petitioner and which was directed to be cleared to drain out water from property of respondents and the locality. Having regard to the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. But I make it clear that any finding entered by courts below will be confined to the disposal of I.A.Nos.750 and 1351 of 2009 and shall not in any way affect the final decision of the suit. Petitioner will be at liberty to place all evidence in support of his contention that he is entitled to the injunction prayed for, before the learned Munsiff. With the above observation Writ Petitions are closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks