IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No. 81 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 162/2010 IN AS.27/2010 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. KAMARUDHEEN M.A., S/O. ABBAS, AGED 60 YEARS, ABBAS MANZIL, MANJAKKULAM, YAKKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 2. T.M.MUHAMMED SAHIB, S/O. T.K.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 70 YEARS, THOTTINGAL VEEDU, 25/549, MANJAKKULAM, PALAKKAD-14. BY ADV. MR.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ARAKKAL MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ARAKKAL ABDUL RAHIMAN MUSSALIYAR, MUTHAVALLI, MANJAKKULAM PALLI JARAM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA WAKF BOARD, PARAMARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY MR. T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUBAL THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... F.A.O.No.81 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Palakkad in I.A.No.162/2010 in AS.No.27/2010. The plaintiff, who lost the suit, filed an appeal and moved an application for injunction and the appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of disposal of the suit till the disposal of the above appeal. The status quo during the pendency of the suit is that there are three hundies installed in the premises of the mosque. It was decided that offerings from one hundi can be taken by the plaintiff and offerings from other two hundies can be taken by the committee and that arrangement has to continue till the final disposal of the suit . 2. The trial court after consideration of the materials, had non suited the plaintiff. So, it is not really possible to continue the status quo as such. But there must be some security for the defendants in the case for the reason that if : 2 : F.A.O.No.81 OF 2010 the entire money is taken away from one hundi and it is spent without any sort of security or guarantee and if ultimately the defendants succeed, there will be difficulty. But at the same time some arrangement has to follow for the reason that the subject matter of the suit has to be preserved as now. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I feel that the only possible methodology that can be adopted is to direct the plaintiff to furnish security for the money which he is taking from one hundi and thereafter take the amount. I am informed that it is the Commissioner who collects the money and deposits in the court. So there will not be any difficulty for ascertainment of the amount and furnishing security. If that is done, there can be an interim arrangement and it is further necessary that the subject matter of the appeal itself can be finished by the end of July after hearing both sides. 4. Therefore I dispose of the FAO with a direction to the court below that when the amount is deposited in court and the plaintiff moves an application for taking money : 3 : F.A.O.No.81 OF 2010 from one hundi, let it be released to him only on furnishing sufficient security for that amount. This arrangement can continue till the appeal is disposed of and I direct the court below to hear the appeal and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible not later than 31.7.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : F.A.O.No.81 OF 2010