IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 507 of 2002(G) ---------------------- CMA.4/2000 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA OS.186/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU (IA. 825 /2000) .................... PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------ 1. M.SAJITH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. P.H.MUHAMMED SALIM, RESIDING AT ROSE DALE HOUSE, KUMALI KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. P.H.MUHAMMED SALIM, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN RAWTHER, ROSE DALE HOUSE, KUMALI KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. P.H.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN RAWTHER, AZAD MANZIL HOUSE, KUMALI KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.(DIED)LRS IMPLEADED: 2. SUNIL A.RAHIM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. P.H.ABDUL RAHIM, AZAD MANZIL HOUSE, KUMALI KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. *ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED: R3. KHADEEJA BEEVI, W/O.LATE P.H.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 48 YEARS, KANJIRATHINMMOOTIL BUILDING, CHELIMADA, KUMALI – 685 509. R4. SOUMYA A.RAHIM, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O. P.H.ABDUL RAHIM, KANJIRATHINMMOOTIL BUILDING, CHELIMADA, KUMALI P.O., PIN – 685 509. (*ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DTD. 10/06/09 IN I.A.1411/03) BY ADDL.R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.TITUS MANI, MR.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.1242/2002 IN C.RP.NO.507/2002 DISMISSED 11/06/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.507 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 11th June, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.2002 in C.M.A.No.4 of 2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kattappana. The above C.M.Appeal arose from the order in I.A.No.825 of 2000 in O.S.No.186/2000, an application for injunction, passed by the learned Munsiff, Peermade. Petitioners as plaintiffs instituted the above suit for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from trespassing upon and interfering with them possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property described as having an extent of one acre. With the suit the plaintiffs moved an application for temporary injunction, I.A.No.825/2000, which, after considering the objections raised by the counter petitioners, the defendants in the suit, the present respondents and hearing the counsel on both sides, was allowed by the learned Munsiff holding that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for such discretionary relief. Aggrieved by that order, the defendants filed an appeal, which numbered as C.M.A.No.4/2000, after hearing both sides, was disposed by the learned Sub Judge, Kattappana modifying the order passed by the learned Munsiff by directing the parties to C.R.P.No507/02. - 2 - maintain status quo and not to commit waste or mischief in the suit property till the dispute is finally settled after trial. Questioning the propriety, correctness and legality of the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge in appeal, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this revision. 2. Though notice was served on the respondents, none of them has entered appearance. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Inviting my attention to the observations by the learned Sub Judge concurring with the findings made by the learned Munsiff, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the modification made of the order passed by the court below in appeal was patently erroneous and unsustainable. In the preceding paragraphs before the modification was made under the impugned judgment, the learned Sub Judge has found after perusing the materials produced that the case set up by the defendants to resist the interim relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiffs is unconvincing. Plaintiffs have produced their document of title and also tax receipts and other convincing records establishing their possession over the suit property and appreciating those documents, the learned Munsiff has allowed the injunction application and no variation of that order was warranted as C.R.P.No507/02. - 3 - done by the learned Sub Judge, is the submission of the learned counsel. So much so, it is urged, in reversal of the modification made by the Sub Judge, the order of the learned Munsiff has to be restored. 4. I have gone through the order of the learned Munsiff and also the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge. A commission report prepared by an advocate commissioner, after local inspection of the suit property which was handed over by the counsel for the petitioners was also perused. The petitioners have obtained title over the suit property having an extent of one acre under a sale deed exhibited as Ext.A9 taken from the defendants who had obtained title over that property under a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal. Purchase certificate issued in favour of the defendants showed an extent of one acre and fifty cents. In Ext.A9 sale deed, in the description column it has been stated that though the extent issued by the purchase certificate is shown as one acre and fifty cents, actual extent is limited to one acre only. Plaintiffs have laid the suit on the basis of Ext.A9 sale deed contending that the property conveyed under that deed is well bounded and the defendants have no property on any of its sides. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs contending that on the northern side of the property conveyed under Ext.A9, they retain 50 cents of land the balance land C.R.P.No507/02. - 4 - left over with them under the purchase certificate even after the sale. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the respective case advanced by both sides while considering the merit of the injunction application moved by the plaintiffs, and also the order and judgment passed by the learned Munsiff and learned Sub Judge respectively. But, it is seen, the defendants in their objections to the interim application had contended that a shed put up by them in the 50 cents of property just before the filing of the suit was destroyed by the plaintiffs and a crime case was registered over that incident. The report filed by the commissioner after conducting a local inspection prima facie gives some credence to that allegation wherein he has noted the destruction of a shed, half burned two cots, a bed etc. When that be the case, whatever be the merit of the claim advanced by the plaintiffs to sustain the suit claim, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the modification of the injunction order passed by the learned Sub Judge directing both sides to maintain the status quo till the disputes involved are adjudicated by trial of the suit after giving opportunity to both sides to establish their respective case. The revision is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE C.R.P.No507/02. - 5 -