IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 363 of 2011(O) CMA.61/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.221/2007 OF MUSNIFF COURT,ADOOR (IA 1105/2007) PETITIONER: -------------------- B.RAJENDRAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 53, KOLOOR KIZHAKETHIL HOUSE, EDAKKADU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- B.RATNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60, D/O.BHAVANI, PUTHENVEETTIL, KADAMBANADU VADAKKU MURI, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE AND P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691552. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DATED 17.12.1994 BEARING NO.1139/94 OF S.R.O. KADAMBANADU. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.7631 DATED 12.7.2007. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 18.9.2007 IN I.A.NO.1105/07 IN O.S.NO.221/2007 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 11.10.2010 IN C.M.A.NO.61/07 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 363 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.221 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Adoor. The plaintiff is none other than the sister of the wife of the petitioner/defendant. It is alleged that the petitioner/defendant deserted his wife. The petitioner was working in a Gulf country. According to him, he spent money for purchasing the plaint schedule property. The property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. On his coming back to India, the plaintiff transferred the property to the defendant. However, mutation was not effected. Up to 1.2.2007, the plaintiff, the defendant and the sister of the plaintiff (wife of the defendant) were residing together. Thereafter, they are residing separately. Disputes arose between the parties. The suit was filed for injunction. An ad interim order of injunction was passed on 4.7.2007. Subsequently, mutation in respect of the property was changed in the name of the defendant on 12.7.2007 and he paid revenue for the period 2007- 2008 in a lump on that date. 2. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary O.P.(C) NO.363 OF 2011 :: 2 :: injunction. The plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Pathanamthitta. The lower Appellate Court ordered the status quo with respect to the land, nature and boundaries of the plaint schedule item to be maintained till the disposal of the suit. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously, untrammelled by any of the observations contained in the judgment passed by the court below. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by any of the observations contained in the order passed by the trial court and the judgment passed by the lower Apppellate Court. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/