IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 869 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ OS.NO.57/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SHEELA, AGED 49, W/O.RAVIPRASAD, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM HOUSE, SOOLAPPARA KARA, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR, SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. VASUDEVAN, AGED ABOUT 48, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, NARAKAMPOIKAYIL HOUSE, SOOLAPPARA KARA, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, 685 551. 2. RAJAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 45, RESIDING AT CHETTUKUZHIYIL BUILDING, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, 685 551. 3. SASIMON K.T., AGED ABOUT 52, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KOLLAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, 685 551. 4. RAJENDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 50, METTUMPURATH HOUSE, SOOLAPPARA KARA, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE, PIN-685 551. IMPLEADED AS 4TH RESPONDENT AS DIETY OF SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE, SOOLAPPARA (AS PER IN I.A.218/2009 IN OS.NO.57/2009). BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(Civil). No. 869 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief: “i) Issue an order or directing setting aside Ext.P8 judgment of the learned Sub Judge, Kattappana in C.M.A. No.22010 and 3/2010.” 2. Petitioner instituted O.S.57 of 2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana as a representative suit seeking several reliefs. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. Defendants 1 and 3 entered appearance and filed written statement, which is marked as Ext.P2. The fourth respondent filed a written statement, which is marked as Ext.P3. The suit infact was one for injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and making any construction on the north-eastern O.P.(C)869/2011. 2 portion of the plaint schedule property. The main contention of the defendants was that the 7 cents of property is in the possession of Sree Subramaniya Swami Temple. In turn the fourth respondent representing Sree Subramaniya Swami Temple filed O.S.95 of 2009 for injunction against the petitioner herein and her husband seeking to restrain them from obstructing the day to day ceremonies and Bhajana in the plaint schedule property. Copy of the plaint in O.S.95 of 2009 is produced as Ext.P4. The written statement filed the defendants in that suit is marked as Ext.P5. A commissioner was appointed in O.S. 57 of 2009 and he filed Ext.P6 report. In both the suits the respective plaintiffs filed I.As for interim injunction. I.A.156 of 2009 was filed in O.S.57 of 2009 and I.A.274 of 2009 was filed in O.S.95 of 2009. They were heard together and the petitioners' I.A. was allowed and the other I.A. was dismissed, copy of the order is produced as Ext.P7. Against the common order, the defendants in O.S. 57 of 2009 took up the matter in C.M.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2010. The lower O.P.(C)869/2011. 3 appellate court allowed the C.M.As and thereby dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner and allowing the petition filed by the defendants in O.S.57 of 2009. That brings the petitioner before this court. 3. After going through the orders of the lower appellate court, I feel that no interference is called for with the order of the lower appellate court. 4. It is admitted by the plaintiffs in O.S.57 of 2009 that the temple authorities were allowed to use the vacant land for Bhajans by the petitioner. It was in that capacity that they were holding the property. The lower appellate court has noticed that the trial court was not justified in restraining the temple authorities and their men from conducting Bhajans in the property as it had been permitted by the plaintiffs in O.S.57 of 2009. The lower appellate court has also noticed that the trial court infact has gone into the question regarding ownership of the property, which was not warranted at the interlocutory stage. The only dispute is regarding the construction of a shed. While the petitioner O.P.(C)869/2011. 4 contended that the shed was put up without the consent of the plaintiffs in O.S.57 of 2009. Whatever that be, the temple authorities were occupying the property is a matter which cannot be disputed. It is also admitted that there is no boundary separating the temple property from the property owned by the petitioner herein. Under these circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate court, having granted permission to conduct Bhajans and to put up a shed, it was not proper on the part of the trial court to have injuncted the temple authorities from making use of the property. 5. It cannot be said that the view of the lower appellate court is unjustified or unwarranted by the materials on record. One should remember that the suits are only at the interlocutory stage and as rightly noticed by the lower appellate court, the question as to the dispute regarding title need not be resolved at the interlocutory stage. As to what exactly are the rights of the parties is a matter to be looked into at the final stage. It is not in O.P.(C)869/2011. 5 dispute that the temple authorities are permitted to occupy the plaint schedule property for the purpose of conducting Bhajans. It does not appear from the orders of the court below that there was any attempt on the part of the temple authorities to do anything other than what they were permitted. Under these circumstances, there is no justification in interfering with the judgment of the lower appellate court. 6. The result is that, this original petition is without any merits and it is only to be dismissed. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that in case this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court, there may be a direction to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Considering the nature of the suits and the reliefs sought for, it is felt that it is only just and proper to issue such a direction. In the result, while dismissing the original petition, there will be a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana O.P.(C)869/2011. 6 to try and dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.