Partly allowed

James Chennattu v. Vekkechalil Mathew

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012OP(C)/1754/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified interim mandatory injunction orders under a permanent injunction suit. It permitted the respondent to reconstruct compound walls and restore the property status quo ante, while vacating findings on who bore restoration costs to be determined in the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Permitted respondent to construct compound walls and restore property status quo ante; vacated liability findings for restoration expenses.

James Chennattu Vs Vekkechalil Mathew — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1754 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OS.334/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, TALIPARAMBA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

JAMES CHENNATTU, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KURIYAN RESIDING AT CHENNATTU HOUSE PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM P.O PAYYAVOOR PIN 670633 TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

VEKKECHALIL MATHEW, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KURIAKO, VAKKECHALIL HOUSE KANDAKASSERY, PAYYAVOOR P.O PIN 670633 PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C) NO. 1754/2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,TALIPARAMBA.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE I.A NO.1800 OF 2009 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED IN I.A NO.1800 OF 2009 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 19-08-2009 FILED IN I.A NO 1800 OF 2009 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE I.A NO.2221 OF 2011 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A NO.2221 OF 2011 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A NO.2221 OF 2011 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-01-2012 FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE I.A NO.395 OF 2012 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN CMA NO.7 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE I.A NO.373 OF 2012 IN C.M.A NO.7 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBSTANCE/EXTRACT OF THE DOCKET ORDER DATED 17-02-2012 IN I.A 395 OF 2012 IN O.S NO.334 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT TALIP[ARAMBA
EXT.P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-03-2012 IN OP(CIVIL) NO.613 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P14	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-04-2012 IN C.M.A NO.7 OF 2012ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT PAYYANNUR

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶21

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶22

OP(C) NO. 1754 OF 2012

¶23

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2012

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Concurrent orders passed on an application for interim mandatory injunction in a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction are under challenge. The courts below have on the basis of Exts.C1 to C3 reports of the Advocate Commissioner held that the status quo has been altered since the date of filing of the suit by demolishing the compound wall on the northern and southern side as well as by laying a road after cutting the trees.

¶26

It is trite law that an order for interim mandatory injunction could be passed for restoring the status quo ante as on the date of suit. Therefore the courts below cannot be faulted with in directing the construction of the compound walls on the northern and the southern side and restoring the property to its original position as on the date of suit.

¶27

¶28

OP(C) No. 1754/2012

¶29

The impugned order of the lower appellate court

¶30

inter alia states as follows:

¶31

“There is no dispute as to the demolition of northern as well as southern compound wall and cutting down of trees. The only ground urged by the appellant is that which was done by the general public and they have no role in it”.

¶32

It is evident therefore that status quo has been altered and who is responsible for such acts alone assumes importance.

¶33

I modify the impugned orders and permit the respondent/plaintiff to construct the compound walls on the northern and southern side and restore the property to its original position. This will ofcourse be without prejudice to the contentions of either parties in the suit.

¶34

I hasten to add that the question whether the defendant should be mulcted with the liability to bear the expenses for construction and restoration will be considered in the suit. Either parties are at liberty to adduce evidence as to who is responsible for the alteration of the status quo pending suit. The findings in that regard in the orders impugned are hereby vacated.

¶35

¶36

OP(C) No. 1754/2012

¶37

The court of the Munsiff of Taliparamba is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 334/2009 on its file before the court

¶38

closes for summer recess in the year 2013.

¶39

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶40

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶41

ncd

James Chennattu v. Vekkechalil Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Chennattu v. Vekkechalil 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

K.S.Sauda Beevi Vs Subaida Pareeth

State of Kerala Vs K.Padmanabhan

S. Saraswathy Vs P.N. Jayaram

Gopinathan Vs Sree Durga Bhagavathikavu Trust

Jessy Vs Kuriakose @ Uthuppu

Nita Gelatin India Limited Vs Ravi