IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 296 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/08/2005 IN IA.1696/05 IN OS.273/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ELIA, W/O.KANNUKKADAN LONA, VALLANCHIRA DESOM, ALUR VILLAGE. 2. VAREED, S/O.PUTHENVEETTIL KUNJAVARA, MURINGOOR DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE. 3. THOMAS, S/O.PUTHENVEETTIL KUNJAVARA, MURINGOOR DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE. 4. AVARACHAN, S/O.PUTHENVEETTIL KUNJAVARA, MURINGOOR DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE. 5. JOHNY, S/O.PUTHENVEETTIL KUNJAVARA, MURINGOOR DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE. 6. BABU, S/O.PUTHENVEETTIL POULOSE(LATE), MURINGOOR DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O.PULLELI VAREED, MURINGOOR DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE. 2. ROSY @ AMMINI, W/O.VADAKKAN MANJALI KUNJUVAREED, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE DESOM. 3. THRESSIAMMA, W/O.MUKKADAYIL JOHN, THAMMANAM DESOM & VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 296 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, The suit, O.S.273 of 2005, was filed by the appellants before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda for partition of plaint schedule property with mesne profits. Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. They also filed I.A. 1696 of 2005 for interim injunction against the act of committing waste in the plaint schedule property. Respondents contended that the properties are not partible and no grounds are made out for granting injunction. 2. The court below dismissed the injunction application, against which the present appeal is filed. 3. There are about ten items of properties scheduled. Respondents contended that those properties were acquired by their grandfather and father and they have effected settlement partition deed with respect to those properties. Ext. B1 is the copy of the partition deed. Court below prima facie found that Ext.B1 did not appear to be fraudulent, though it is contended that Ext.B1 was got FAO. 296/2005. 2 executed by playing undue influence, coercion etc. That is an aspect yet to be proved on evidence in the suit. The court below also found that by injuncting and restraining the respondents of their rights of alienation or to deal with the properties put them to great sufferings. Many of the items in the petition schedule are not available now as the same had been disposed off by the predecessor in interest long back. Balance of convenience is not in favour of granting injunction. 4. The order impugned was passed as early as on 12th August, 2005. No interim injunction was granted by this court in the present appeal. Nearly four years have elapsed. The very purpose of seeking an ad interim injunction is thus lost by efflux of time. Further alienation, if any, made will not deprive the petitioners of their ultimate relief since such transaction will be hit by the rule of lis pendence. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and at this distance of time it may not be appropriate or desirable to change the status quo that is continuing all the time. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. Observations made in the impugned order and in this FAO. 296/2005. 3 judgment will not affect the rival contentions of the parties and the court below will dispose of the suit in accordance with law, untramelled by any such observations. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.