Dismissed

Mathew and Another v. the Range Officer,Marayoor and Another

Kerala HC19 Jan 2011OP(C)/43/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Petition challenged interlocutory orders dismissing a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The petitioner alleged possession of forest land, while the respondent State disputed the claim citing sanctuary status. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings.

What did the court decide?

None. The Original Petition was disposed of with no interference in the lower orders; the suit was remanded for expeditious disposal.

Mathew and Another Vs the Range Officer,Marayoor and Another — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 43 of 2011(O)

¶6

----------------------CMA.17/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA IA 1490/2008 IN OS.227/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS :

¶8

¶9

MATHEW, S/O.CHANDY, MUKALEL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU KARA, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DIST. PIN-685 613.

¶10

SAIJU, S/O. VISWANATHAN, PANGASSERIL HOUSE, ANAVIRATTY KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DIST, PIN-685563.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS

SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER

RESPONDENT(S):

THE RANGE OFFICER, MARAYOOR, MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE, IDUKKI DIST-685620.

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶17

SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.M..PAULOSE SPL.G.P. FOR FORESTS

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶20

O.P.(Civil) No.43 of 2011 O

¶21

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2011

¶22

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.227 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Devikulam, whose application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial court and which was confirmed by the appellate court, have filed this Original Petition challenging the order and judgment.

¶23

The petitioners filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 10.20 acres in resurvey No.183/1 of Vattavada Village in Devikulam Taluk. The defendants are the Range Officer of the Marayoor Forest Range, Devikulam and the State of Kerala. According to the plaintiffs, they got possession of the property from one Edwin as per the agreement dated 28.9.2008. Edwin obtained ownership

¶24

O.P.(Civil)No.43/2011

¶25

¶26

and possession of the property as per the agreement dated 4.11.2003 from one Subramanian and others. Subramanian and others were the encroachers upon the plaint schedule property in 1970. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the property and they cultivated the property.

¶27

The defendants/respondents disputed the claim

¶28

made by the plaintiffs. They contended that the plaint schedule property has been brought under the purview of Kurinjimala sanctuary. The plaintiffs have no ownership or possession of the plaint schedule property. The attempt of the plaintiffs is to grab the property.

¶29

On a consideration of the pleadings and contentions of the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get temporary injunction as prayed for. The order of the trial court was upheld by the lower appellate court.

¶30

O.P.(Civil)No.43/2011

¶31

¶32

I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below. The court below shall dispose of the suit expeditiously untrammelled by the observations and findings in the order and judgment.

¶33

The Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of, with the

above observation.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Mathew and Another v. the Range Officer,Marayoor and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew and Another v. the Range Officer,Marayoor and Another

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

Kse Board Vs Vijayamma

Power Gird Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Sudhamani

M.C.Thomas Vs Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom and Ors.

Hydro-Tech,Mananging Partner Biju Jacob Vs the Govt. of the State of Kerala

E.P.K.Balakrishnan and Another Vs Jayaraman

K.S. Nalinakshy Vs N. Raju