IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 FAO.No. 106 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/04/2008 IN IA.1976/2008 IN OS.255/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------- MINI, W/O.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, MATTAPURATH HOUSE, GRAMKINA VAYALASALA ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 78 YEARS, MATTAPURATH HOUSE, EAROOR, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE. 2. SADANANDAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 3. VINAYAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 4. AJITHA KUMARI, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, ARTHIPADATH HOUSE, KANDATHIL, CHAMPAKKARA, POONITHURA P.O. 5. JARMILA, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 6. DILEEP, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, -DO- -DO- THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.106 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order declining to grant temporary injunction as prayed for. Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit for partition of an extent of 92 cents mentioned in the plaint schedule. The definite stand of the 3rd respondent was that his grand-father Krishnan had assigned 37 cents of land in favour of Jiji Sridharan as per sale deed No.2401/1989 and another 50 cents of land in favour of Sukumaran as per sale deed No.2402/1989 and those two items were purchased by the 3rd respondent as per sale deed Nos.1261/96 and 3190/96 respectively. According to the appellant, some of the items of property had been sold by late Krishnan in favour of some other persons. That is a matter which could be considered in the suit. But prima facie, when two documents have been produced by the 3rd respondent, there is hardly anything to say that the order passed by the court below in exercise of its discretion is illegal warranting any interference. The court below in exercise of its discretion has declined -2- F.A.O.No.106/2008 to grant the interim relief on finding that the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case for granting the interim injunction. The court below has not committed any error or illegality warranting such interference of this Court. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, we wish to add that whatever observation made in the order impugned and in our judgment is only for the limited purpose of consideration as to whether temporary injunction could be granted in favour of the petitioner/appellant based on the prima facie case, and shall not be swayed away while deciding the matter finally by the court below. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.