IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 FAO.No. 7 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2008 IN IA 1777/2008 IN OS.396/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RDCOUNTER PETITIONER/3RDDEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 42 YEARS ADITHYA, MULLACKAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA MURI, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & COUNTER PETITIONER 1 & 2 / PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 & 2: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.V.JOJI, S/O.VARGHESE, MALIYEKKAL VEETTIL, CHERTHALA THEKKUM MURI, CHERTHALA THEKKU VILLAGE. 2. SIDDIKH, S/O. UMMER KUNJU, KOTTAIKATTU VEETTIL, THEKKEN ARYAD MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. RAHMATH, W/O. SIDDIKH, KOTTAIKATTU VEETTIL, THEKKEN ARYAD MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN FOR R2,3 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- FAO.No.7 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Raman, J . Admittedly, respondents 2 and 3 are now residing in the property and if so, the contention of the appellant that he is in possession of the property cannot be accepted at this stage. However, according to the appellant, he has purchased the property long prior to the institution of the present suit for specific performance by the plaintiff. There is a dispute as to whether he is a bonafide purchaser and whether he has got valid right over the property are pending consideration before the court below. In the above circumstances, temporary injunction was granted from creating any documents pertaining to the petition schedule property or to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. It is seriously disputed that the appellant is not in possession and at the maximum it can only state that defendents 2 and 3 are in possession of the property. With respect to the possession, a clear finding is not entered into by the court below. Therefore, for the purpose of preserving right of the parties, it is only appropriate that the appellant should be restrained by an order of injunction not to create any documents in relation to the property and not to commit any FAO No.7/2009 2 waste in the property. As regards the possession, the status quo as on today will continue till the disposal of the suit. With the above modification, this FAO is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE TKS