Allowed

Ammmini Nair,W/O.K.S.Ravindran Nair v. Joseph,S/O,Mathew

Kerala HC10 Apr 2008WP(C)/10623/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an appellate court order maintaining status quo in a property dispute over a 10-foot pathway. The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the matter expeditiously within two months, vacated a cost order, and ensured disposal without being bound by specific observations from the lower courts.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appellate court's order; directed the trial court to dispose of the case within two months of reopening after summer holidays; vacated the District Judge's cost order.

Ammmini Nair,W/O.K.S.Ravindran Nair Vs Joseph,S/O,Mathew — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10623 of 2008(M) -------------------------CMA.53/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA ....................

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

¶6

AMMINI NAIR, W/O.RAVINDRAN NAI, KARUVICHALIL, NALUKETTU, KAITHAKKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAVINDRAN.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR-PARTY IN PERSON)

¶8

RESPONDENTS: -------------

¶9

JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, PALAKUNNEL HOUSE, VENGALOOR KARA, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶10

RENJITH JOHN, S/O.JOHN, THEKKEKALAPURAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPARIYARAM KARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶11

JAYAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, JAYA NIVAS, KEEZHPURAPUZHA, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶12

SMITHA JAYAN, W/O.JAYAN, JAYA NIVAS, KEEZHPURAPUZHA, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶13

RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, ANDOOR HOUSE, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶14

LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, ANDOOR HOUSE,

¶15

PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO 10623/08

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CITATION AIR 1978 SC 1019

¶22

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE PETITIONER, AMMINI NAIR

¶23

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶24

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COMMON OR IN IA 982/07 AND IN IA 1226/07

¶25

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 53/07 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶26

EXT.P6. COPY OF THE COMMISISON REPORT WITH ROUGH SKETCH AT 13.10.07

¶27

EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUXTAPOSED WITH VIEW OF SAME ANGLE-PAST AND PRESENT STATUS

¶28

EXT.P8. COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT COMMISSION REPORT AND ROUGH SKETCH OF VIOLATION DT. 14.2.08

¶29

EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ADVANCE PETITION FILED IN MUNSIFFS COURT IN IA 1178/07

¶30

EXT.P10. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED 3006/99 OF SRO, THODUPUZHA

¶31

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE.

¶32

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

¶33

W.P.(C). NO. 10623 OF 2008

¶34

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2008

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This writ petition is argued by the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff in person. The suit is with respect to a pathway. The trial court directed the parties to maintain the status quo of the property as on the date of inspection of the commissioner's report, which is available in Ext.C2 and C2(a). The appellate court after perusal of the entire matter concurred with the said finding and it is against that decision, the present writ petition is filed.

¶37

The whole dispute centers around the entitlement of a party to have a way, which according to them is having a width of 10 feet and length of 300 feet. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 had purchased 44 cents of property under Ext.A1 and assigned 10 cents of property first and 26 cents of property subsequently, by Exts.P3 and P4 and the remaining 8 cents of property claims to be in their possession. They claim the present pathway as their access to the property. Defendants on the other hand deny the same. The commissioner on inspection of the property found that there had been obstruction and and stones have been laid down on the pathway. Therefore the court below held that the matter requires consideration in the form of evidence for deciding the matter and directed the parties to maintain the status quo as reported in Ext.C2 and Ext.C2(a).

¶38

¶39

WPC NO 10623/08

¶40

I do not find any mistake in such an order being passed for the lack of other materials available at that point of time. Now the appellate court has directed the trial court to dispose of the matter within a period of six months. Since the dispute involved is with regard to a way and there are serious grievances for the writ petitioner, I feel this is a fit case where two things have to be modified. One thing is with regard to the time factor and the other is of cost. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶41

(i) I direct the learned Munsiff to try and dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of reopening of the court after summer holidays.

¶42

(ii) The order of cost imposed by the District Judge is vacated.

¶43

(iii) The trial court shall dispose of the matter untrammelled by

¶44

any of the observations contained in its own order or in the judgment of the appellate court.

¶45

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶46

vps

¶47

WPC NO 10623/08 3

¶48

WPC NO 10623/08 4

Ammmini Nair,W/O.K.S.Ravindran Nair v. Joseph,S/O,Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammmini Nair,W/O.K.S.Ravindran Nair v. Joseph,S/O,Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Mary Kutty Joseph

Gloriya Jose Kotturan Vs a.v.Thomas

Suchitra Vs Santhosh Kumar

M.v.Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala

P.K.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala and Others

E.a.Nandakumar Vs Dhanesh P.T.