IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2452 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- OS.201/2001 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, SYAMALALAYATHIL HOUSE, ANJILIPRAMURI, KANNAMANGALM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VADAKKUM KOVIL BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY TEMPLE PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHY, SECRETARY SRI.UDAYABHANU,AGED 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT LATHA BHAVANAM, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 2. GOPAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 39 YEARS RESIDING AT PERATHERIL MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 3. NARAYANAN SADANANDAN, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT EDAPPURAYIL, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 4. KUNJUPANICKEN SAHADEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL, ANJILIPRA MURI, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 5. RAGHAVAN GOPINATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALARICLALETHU, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. tss OP(C) NO.2452/2011 6. VASUDEVAN KRISHNA DAS, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADAYIL THEKKETHIL, ANJILIPRA MURI,KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 7. SETHUNATH, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASUDEVA MANDIRATHIL, ANJILIPRA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE-690 106. 8. OFFICIAL RECEIVER, OFFICIAL RECEIVER'S OFFICE, COURT COMPLEX, MAVELIKARA-690 101. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(C) NO.2452/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DECREE IN OS. 201/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA. P2:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT. P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER . P5:- COPY OF THE RECEIVERS REPORT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 22.7.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2452 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.201 of 2001 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Mavelikkara. That is a scheme suit wherein Ext.P1, preliminary decree was passed for framing a scheme for a private family trust. Petitioner was given permission to cultivate the land of the trust for a period of six months from 09.11.2010 (which expired on 09.05.2011). While so, the second defendant filed Ext.P3, application before learned Sub Judge to direct auction of crops as if it is natural growth. Petitioner preferred objection to that application contending that he cultivated tapioca in the land in question and that he has spent `6,475/- for the said purpose, apart from the man power he had to employ. In the meantime the Official Receiver filed Ext.P5, report. Based on Ext.P5, report learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P6, order directing the Official Receiver to conduct public auction. Accordingly the Official Receiver has given Ext.P7, notice for sale on 29.07.2011. Ext.P6, order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel has contended that tapioca plants were cultivated by petitioner spending huge amount and hence he is entitled to take the crop. It is submitted that Ext.P6, order in the circumstances cannot be sustained. 3. By Ext.P6, order learned Sub Judge has only directed the Official Receiver to conduct public auction of the crops after giving notice to the parties OP(C) No.2452/2011 2 concerned and also by public notice and deposit the bid amount in court. 4. Now the question is whether this Court should interfere with that order. To decide that, reference to Ext.P5, report submitted by Official Receiver is required. 5. In Ext.P5, report it is stated that there are altogether 455 bunches of tapioca plants in the property of which many were found in decayed condition on account of rain water (even as on 18.07.2011, the date of Ext.P5). The Receiver plucked five tapioca plants and found the tapioca in decayed condition. In the circumstance that learned Sub Judge has passed Ext.P6, order. 6. So far as right of petitioner to take yield as well as profit as he claims, is concerned, learned Sub Judge has not made any finding. In otherwords it is open to the petitioner to agitate those matters before the learned Sub Judge. Now the situation is that if Ext.P6, order is stayed, the remaining tapioca plants will also be decayed and nobody will be benefited. I must bear in mind that Ext.P6, order is dated 22.07.2011 passed on the basis of Ext.P5, report dated 18.07.2011. One can imagine what would be the situation of the tapioca now. If the matter is further delayed situation can only worsen. I think this Court need not be a party to that. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order. OP(C) No.2452/2011 3 Without prejudice to the right of petitioner to make appropriate claim in respect of the amount if any obtained by sale in public auction and deposited before leaned Sub Judge, this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks