IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 SA. No. 381 of 1999(D) --------------------- AS.208/1996 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD OS.337/1995 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------- 1.SEETHARAMA KADAMBALITHAYA, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA KADAMBALITHAYA, PAMBATHADKA, PADRE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, VANI NAGAR POST. 2.SECRETARY, BADIADKA BEEDI WORKERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BADIADKA. BY ADVS. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI SMT.REJI RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------- N.SHESHAPPA NAIKA, S/O. KUNHA NAIKA, VANIA NAGAR, PADRE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, VANI NAGAR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- S.A.NO. 381 OF 1999 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The defendants are the appellants. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1999 in A.S. No. 208 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. 2. The suit,O.S. No.337 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants (appellants), their men and agents from demolishing the building or removing any improvements in the A schedule property. The trial court passed a decree restraining the defendants, their men and agents from demolishing the building or removing any improvements in the A schedule property until the disposal of the appeal preferred by the defendants before the District Collector, Kasaragod. The plaintiff filed A.S. No.208 of 1996 against the decree in the suit to the extent it restricts the injunction till the disposal of the appeal filed by the defendants before the District Collector. The appellate court modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court to the effect that the S.A. NO.381/1999 2 permanent prohibitory injunction granted by the trial court will be in operation till the final disposal of the entire proceedings initiated under Act 31 of 1975. 3. The plaint A schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff. In the year 1985, the said property was sold to the first defendant. The first defendant as per registered gift deed dated 7.11.1985 gifted 10 cents out of the 20 cents obtained by him to the second defendant. The plaintiff being a member of the Scheduled Tribe community filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer for restoration of the alienated land described in A schedule to the plaint claiming the benefit of Act 31 of 1975 and the rules made thereunder. The Revenue Divisional Officer ordered restoration of the property in question to the plaintiff against which the defendants filed appeal before the District Collector. While the matter was pending, the plaintiff approached the civil court alleging that the defendant intends to demolish the building and cause damage to the improvements in the property. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they have denied the averments in the plaint and contended that they have no intention to demolish the building in plaint A schedule property nor do they intend to damage or destroy the improvements in the property. According to the defendants, the Beedi S.A. NO.381/1999 3 Workers Industrial Co-operative Society is functioning in the building and since the workers are engaged in the manufacture of beedi, the defendants never thought of demolishing the building or causing any damage to the property. 4. The trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the structures and the improvements in the plaint A schedule property is a matter for decision by the authorities under Act 31 of 1975 and since the matter is pending before the appropriate forum, it is just and necessary to preserve the structures in the property. The trial court, therefore, granted an injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. The appellate court also concurred with the findings entered by the trial court. Both the courts below entertained the apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendants may remove the building and other improvements in the property. But the appellants fairly conceded before this Court that since the Society is functioning in the building with 350 beedi workers, they had never entertained such an intention and the apprehension of the plaintiff is unfounded. The appellants have also reiterated before me that they will not demolish the building or cause any destruction to the improvements in the property. S.A. NO.381/1999 4 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, there is no necessity to go into the merits of the case in depth. The order of injunction granted by the court below shall continue to be in force till the dispute between the parties is decided finally. The Second Appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ S.A. NO.381/1999 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. S.A. NO. 381/1999 JUDGMENT 3rd JUNE, 2008