IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 455 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.806/2009 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- N K PANKAJAM, AGED 70 YEARS W/o. LATE PARAMESWARAN THEKKUMKANDATH VILAKATH PURAYIDAM KANICHAMKODE, VAZHUTHOOR NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.P.R.PRATEESH RESPONDENT: --------------- P K AJITH KUMAR S/o. LATE PARAMESWARAN SREE NILAYAM, BRAHMAMCODU PATHAMKALLU, ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-05 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.455 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.806 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me. The suit property along with adjoining items belonged to her husband as per document No.327 of 2007 and on the death of husband it devolved on petitioner and her children including the respondent. While so, there was a suit for partition as O.S.No.402 of 1995 and as per the decree in that case, one cent (suit property) was allotted to the share of petitioner. It is her case that since the adjoining property belonged to her son, Mohan Kumar, she gave a lease of the suit property to the said Mohan Kumar on 03-02-2007. Later she filed an application to the executing court (in the partition suit) to exclude the one cent from delivery. While so respondent, her son allegedly created a sale deed No.327 of 2007 in his favour concerning the suit property as if she assigned that property to him. She alleged that it was fraudulently created. On the strength of that document respondent filed E.A.No.170 of 2008 in the partition suit for delivery of that property to him. Petitioner filed O.S.No.806 of 2009 to set aside the sale deed and an application O.P(C).No.455 of 2010 : 2 : for stay of delivery of property in O.S.No.327 of 2007. That application (Ext.P1) was dismissed vide order dated 22-10-2010. Petitioner seeks a direction to the learned Additional Munsiff to issue a carbon copy of the said order and in the meantime keep execution proceedings in abeyance. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner, aged about 70 is residing in the suit property and that if property is delivered over she will be virtually thrown out. 2. I am not going into the merit of the case, nor into the question whether learned Munsiff was justified in disallowing the application for injunction/stay as the case may be. Nor am I inclined to give any interim relief as prayed for. However I direct learned Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara to issue a carbon copy of the order dated 22-10-2010 on Ext.P1, application if it is applied for, as early as possible, at any rate within seven (7) days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition is disposed of as above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-