IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 FAO.No. 147 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2010 IN IA.1510/2009 IN OS.215/2009 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANTS/ADDL. PLAINTIFFS 2 AND 3 --------------------- 1. MANULAL V.K., S/O. RAJAMMA, VAZHAPPALLIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., PUNNACKAL KARA, PANACHICKADU VILLAGE. 2. MANILAL V.K., S/O. RAJAMMA, VAZHAPPALLIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., PUNNACKAL KARA, PANACHICKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS/7TH AND 8TH DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. PRATHAPAN P.M., GEETHANJALIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.XX, PALA MUNICIPALITY, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA. 2. MAMMACHAN J.ANTHRAPER, NEDUMPALLI HOUSE, WARD IX, THURAVOOR PANCHAYATH, VADAMANGALAM S.P.O. ADV.R.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- F.A.O.No. 147 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Additional plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the appellants. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The respondents have lodged caveat. They are defendants 7 and 8. 2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Ayyappan. The original plaintiff claimed that she is one of the daughters of Ayyappan. We do not propose to state any further, as the court below has made certain observations touching the merits of the issue of paternity. One of the contentions raised by the appellant before us is that in answer to the objections filed by the opposite side to the application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff have placed on record some more materials, which unfortunately have escaped from the notice of court below. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we notice that the opposing caveators/defendants 7 and 8 are F.A.O.No.147/2010 2 subsequent transferee and their interest is only to protect the property. Admittedly, they are in possession. Obviously, therefore, the only issue that could be considered is as to whether they be permitted to alienate the property pending suit. Having found that the court below had granted an ad-interim order of injunction at the time of institution of the suit and having regard to the nature of the relationship pointed out, we deem it appropriate that defendants 7 and 8 do not alienate the property pending final disposal of the suit. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents state that there may be direction to the court below to consider expeditious disposal of the suit itself. Recording this submission, we vacate the impugned order and grant an order of temporary injunction against defendants 7 and 8 from alienating the property pending final disposal of the suit and further direct the court below to take up the suit on a priority basis and dispose it of on merits, untrammeled by anything stated in the impugned order or in this judgment. Let this be done, as expeditiously as possible. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) ps