Disposed

George.M.L. v. K.H.Shoukathali

Kerala HC17 Sept 2012OP(C)/813/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of Original Petitions challenging interlocutory orders in two suits involving property disputes and injunctions. The Court directed the lower court to conclude the suits within five months and clarified that interim pathway usage did not grant substantive rights until final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed disposal of pending suits within five months and clarified no substantive rights from interim pathway usage.

George.M.L. Vs K.H.Shoukathali — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 813 of 2012 (O)

¶6

CMA.44/2011 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA OS.226/2011 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

GEORGE.M.L.,, AGED 65 YEARS S/O LUCKA, RESIDING AT MALICKAL HOUSE KUDARANJI P.O., KOZHIKODE

¶9

ULAHANAN JOSEPH, S/O. ULAHANAN, NADACKAL HOUSE, KANAKAPUZHA RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, UDUPAMCHOLA REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST PETITIONER.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶12

K.H.SHOUKATHALI,, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. HASSAN KHAN, KAVANAL HOUSE, THALAMATTOM KARA THODUPUZHA P.O., PIN 685584.

¶13

K.A. JOSEPH,, AGED 44 YEARS S/O ANTONY, KALLATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE THALAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA P.O. PIN685584.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2012, ALONG WITH OPC. 842/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(C) 813/2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT-P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.226/2011

¶20

EXT-P2 COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3189/93 OF THOUDUPUZHA SRO.

¶21

EXT-P3 COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2665/2001 OF THODUPUZHA SRO.

¶22

EXT-P4 COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.2222/92 OF THODUPUZHA SRO.

¶23

EXT-P5 COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1126/87 OF THODUPUZHA SRO.

¶24

EXT-P6 COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE IN O.S.45/83 OF THODUPUZHA MUNSIFF COURT.

¶25

EXT-P7 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SURVEY PLAN IN FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.45/83 DATED 21.06.1993.

¶26

EXT-P8 COPY OF THE EXECUTION REPORT IN E.P.117/86 IN O.S.45/83 OF THODUPUZHA MUNSIFF COURT.

¶27

EXT-P9 COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONERS AND THE PROPERTY COVERED BY PARTITION DEED.

¶28

EXT-P10 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONER IN I.A.1494/2011 IN O.S.226/11

¶29

EXT-P11 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 26.09.2011

¶30

EXT-P12 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 30/11/2010

¶31

EXT-P13 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.236/2011

¶32

EXT-P14 COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION I.A.1543/2011 IN O.S.236/2011

¶33

EXT-P15 COPY OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE REPORT ON 07.10.2011

¶34

EXT-P16 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2011 IN O.S.236/2011

¶35

EXT-P17 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IJN CMA.43/2011 AND 44/2011

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL

¶37

V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶38

O.P.(C) Nos.813 & 842 of 2012

¶39

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2012

¶40

Judgment

¶41

Concurrent orders passed on interlocutory applications in two suits (one filed by the petitioners and the other filed by the respondents) are under challenge. The courts below have allowed the application for injunction filed in O.S.No.226 of 2011 and dismissed the application for injunction filed in O.S.No.236 of 2011 whereby the respondents have been permitted to use the plant D schedule pathway.

¶42

A detailed analysis of the evidence on record at this interlocutory stage is impermissible in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I however clarify that the use of the pathway by the respondents will not confer any right on them and that the same would be decided onlyat the time of final disposal of the two suits.

¶43

I direct the Court of the Munsiff of Thodupuzha to dispose of O.S.Nos.226 of 2011 and 236 of 2011 pending on its file within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶44

O.P.(C) Nos.813 & 842/2012

¶45

¶46

judgment. I also add that the same shall be done untrammelled by any observations contained in the orders passed on the interlocutory applications in O.S.Nos.226 of 2011 and 236 of 2011 impugned in these Original Petitions.

¶47

The Original Petitions are disposed of.

¶48

V.CHITABARESH, JUDGE.

¶49

srd

¶50

O.P.(C) Nos.813 & 842/2012 3

George.M.L. v. K.H.Shoukathali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George.M.L. v. K.H.Shoukathali

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

Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs Chirutha Panickathu Lekshmi and Others

Kanthalloor Grama Panchayat Vs M/S.Kodoor Engineers

Babu Poojary Vs Subba Poojary

Abdul Gafoor Vs v.a.Thomas

Sujana.P. Vs Ramani.K.E.

O.K.Kanakaraj Vs C.K.Premavally