IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 189 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 6455/2006 IN OS.641/2006 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SYBIL MORAES, AGED 80 YEARS, D/O.VINCENT PEREIRA, MANGALA BHAVAN, MEENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. FELIX MORAIS, MANGALA BHAVAN, MEENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- MORAES OMANAN @ EPHERIM MORAES, S/O.LATE J.C.MORAES, AGED 65 YEARS, MEENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM AND WAS RESIDING AT KAPPIVILA VEEDU, KULASEKHARAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM, NOW R/AT CLIFF VALLEY RESIDENTS ASSN. NO.24, YMR CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, KOWDIAR, TVM-695003. ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 189 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Plaintiffs, whose application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the court below are the appellants. 2. The suit was one for declaration of title, possession and for injunction. According to the plaintiffs, they obtained 3.57 acres of land in Sy. Nos.236/7-1 and 237/1 of Meenamkulam Village by virtue of assignment from the Land Tribunal. The right, title and possession in the property was subject matter in an earlier suit, namely, O.S. 336 of 1988, which was filed by Mary Pereira, the sister of the first plaintiff. There after plaintiffs have been holding the property. 3. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant suppressing the material facts managed to get patta from the Land Tribunal and instituted a suit as O.S.817 of 2006 praying for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant in the suit from removing sand and creating documents in respect of the properties. In the present suit, I.A. 6455 was filed for temporary injunction. The claim was resisted by the defendant by pointing out that he had right over the property by virtue FAO.189/2007. 2 of a patta in his favour issued from the Land Tribunal. According to him in the earlier suit O.S. 336 of 1988, in which the plaintiffs were also parties they failed to obtain any relief. Pointing out that the patta said to have been obtained by the plaintiffs was not binding on him, he prayed for dismissal of the injunction application. 4. For the purpose of the interlocutory application, the court below had Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Exts.B1 to B13 on the side of the defendant. On a consideration of the materials before it the court below dismissed the application for injunction and vacated the interim injunction already granted. 5. The claim of the parties are based on purchase certificates said to have been obtained by each of them. It is seen that the defendants in the case had laid a suit as O.S. 817 of 2006 against the plaintiffs in the suit. That was a suit for injunction. It appears that the defendant herein has obtained a temporary order of injunction against the appellants herein and that is still subsisting. It is very clear that there is dispute regarding the possession of the property between the parties. It may not be possible at this stage from the materials available to decide as to who is in actual possession. That is a matter to be decided after taking evidence. FAO.189/2007. 3 The only course available is to order status quo as on date and direct the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible along with the other suit filed by the defendant as O.S.817of 2006. Accordingly, there will be an order to that effect. There will be no order as to costs. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.