IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 FAO.No. 48 of 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.7853/2007 IN O.S.NO.1024/2007 DT.19.12.2007 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: RAJENDRA KURUP, S/O.GOVINDA KAIMAL, AGED 63, RESIDING AT ASWATHY,PERANDOOR ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., PIN-682 026. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS : 1. SHEELA SUNNY, W/O. LATE SUNNY AUGUSTINE, AGED ABOUT 43, KAKANATTU HOUSE, KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, NOW RESIDING AT CHITTETHTHAZHATHU HOUSE, AMBALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MINOR SRUTHY SUNNY, D/O. LATE SUNNY AUGUSTINE, AGED 17,KAKANATTU HOUSE KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, NOW RESIDING AT CHITTETHTHAZHATHU HOUSE, AMBALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. MINOR RIYA SUNNY, D/O. LATE SUNNY AUGUSTINE, AGED 13, KAKANATTU HOUSE, KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, NOW RESIDING AT CHITTETHTHAZHATHU HOUSE,AMBALLOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (MINOR R2 & 3 REP.BY THEIR MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SEELA SUNNY, THE 1ST RESPONDENT). BY ADV. SRI.E.J.THOMAS THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.O. NO. 48 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008 JUDGMENT K.T.Sankaran, J. The defendant in O.S.No.1024 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, challenges in this appeal the order dated 19.12.2007 in I.A.No.7853 of 2007. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. I.A.No.7853 of 2007 was filed for temporary injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule property belonged to deceased Sunny Augustine as per the sale deed dated 14.10.2004. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Sunny Augustine. The defendant/appellant contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or possession in respect of the property and that the title deed on which the plaintiff relied on is a sham and invalid document created fraudulently. According to him, he purchased the property from one Shibu as per registered sale deed executed in the year 2007. Shibu obtained title as per sale deed executed by Abel D- Couth, who purchased the property from Judi M.Jose. JudiM.Jose obtained the rights as per sale deed executed by the court as per the decree in O.S.No.93 of 1991. F.A.O. NO. 48 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 3. The court below appointed a Commissioner who submitted Ext.C1 report. The report of the Commissioner would indicate that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The court below found that the plaintiffs have established possession in respect of the plaint schedule property. The court below held that the dispute regarding title can be determined only after taking evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below held that the status quo as noted by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report should be ordered to be maintained by the parties. 4. It cannot be said that the order passed by the court below is illegal or unsustainable. The question of title is to be decided after considering the evidence to be adduced in the case. For the present, as the court below held, it is feasible to maintain status quo as noted by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report. The order does not call for any interference in appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the court below may be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. The respondents are not affected by an early disposal of the case. On the other hand, in the nature of the disputes involved in the F.A.O. NO. 48 OF 2008 :: 3 :: case, an early disposal of the suit is necessary. There will be a direction to the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, before the Court closes for summer holidays in April, 2009. It is also made clear that the findings and observations in the order impugned are intended only for the purpose of disposing of the interlocutory application and the suit shall be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations and findings in the order. The FAO is disposed of as above. The interlocutory application for injunction, I.A.No.706 of 2008, is dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/