Disposed

Chimmandi Sree Neelakeshi Kunnathukal v. Nadarajan Nair

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016OP(C)/688/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order dismissing an injunction application in a civil suit regarding temple property. While refusing a status quo order, the Court directed the lower court to expedite the suit's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the court below to expedite the disposal of the underlying civil suit before the summer vacation.

Chimmandi Sree Neelakeshi Kunnathukal Vs Nadarajan Nair — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 688 of 2015 (O)

¶6

-------------------------CMA. NO.38/2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. CHINNAMMANDI SREE NEELAKESHI KUNNATHUKAL, REPRESENTED BY CHANDRAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN NAIR, PUTHUCHAKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, PANAYARKONAM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

¶10

JANARDHANAN NAIR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, ALUVILA MANOJ BHAVAN, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

3. SUNDARESHAN NAIR, S/O.PADMANABHAN PILLAI, S.S. BHAVAN, PULAVILAKOM, KUNNATHUKAL (P.O.), KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.MANU V., SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN, SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR.

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. NADARAJAN NAIR, S/O. DAMODHARAN PILLAI, NARAYANAVILASOM BUNGLOW, NELLANNOORKONAM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504.

¶15

2. A.P. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN NALI, AYODHYA, CHERUVAKONAM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504.

¶16

OP(C).No. 688 of 2015 (O)

¶17

3. VENUNATH, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, THUSHARA, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504.

¶18

4. GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, GOPIKA NIVAS, IDAMAVARATHALA, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504.

¶19

5. PADMAKUMAR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, NETTARATHALA MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504.

¶20

6. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, LEKSHMI VILASOM BUNGLOW, ARUMALOORKONAM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504.

¶21

R1 TO R4 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR, SRI.V.G.ARUN (NEYYATTINKARA).

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

rs.

¶24

OP(C).No. 688 of 2015 (O)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶27

EXT.P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 143 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
EXT.P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1177 OF 2012 IN OS NO. 143 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
EXT.P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P2 APPLICATION.
EXT.P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/04/2013 OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA IN IA NO. 1177 OF 2012 IN OS NO. 143 OF 2012.
EXT.P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/05/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CMA NO. 38 OF 2013.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶29

EXT.R1A	COPY OF THE TRUST DEED NO.2252 OF 1975.
EXT.R1B	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2010 IN I.A. NO.842/2009
	IN O.S. NO.75/2009 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶30

EXT.R1C	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
	KERALA IN WP(C).NO.16342/2010 DATED 27/05/2010.

¶31

EXT.R1D	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
	KERALA IN WP(C).NO.16342/2010 DATED 13/08/2010.

¶32

EXT.R1E	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08/08/2012 IN WP(C).NO.16342/2010.
EXT.R1F	COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22/03/2013 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S. NO.75/2009 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
EXT.R1G	COPY OF THE PHOTOS EVIDENCING THE DILAPIDATED STATUS TEMPLE.
EXT.R1H	COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 15/06/2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶37

O.P.(C).No.688 of 2015

¶38

....................................................... Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2016.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the court below, challenging Ext.P4 passed by the trial court confirmed in Ext.P5 by the appellate court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners filed Ext.P1 suit as OS.No.143/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara seeking certain rights alleging that they are the members of the family and owners of the temple and they have got some right in the petition schedule property. They also filed Ext.P2 application as IA.No.1177/2012 for injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction or committing any act of waste in the disputed property and the respondents filed a counter by producing Ext.P3 agreement stating that the petitioners have no right over the property and it has been given for dedication to the public and the school is being conducted in the property. After hearing both sides and after considering the documentary evidence produced, the Sub Judge by Ext.P4 order dismissed the application. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing CMA.No.38/2013 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was made over to the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram for disposal and learned Additional District Judge by Ext.P5 judgment dismissed

¶42

O.P.(C).No.688 of 2015 2

¶43

the appeal confirming the order passed by the court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

¶44

Heard Sri. Ram Mohan G, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 6.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the temple is conducting a ritual in the property and it is a paddy field. If the paddy filed is filled up and the trees are cut and removed, it will cause hardship to the plaintiffs if ultimately they win the suit. They also contended that, for the time being a status quo order may be passed and direct the court below to dispose of the suit within a time frame.

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the court below after hearing both sides came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case and passed the impugned order which was confirmed by the appellate court as well. Unless this court is satisfied that it is a perverse order, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. Further there was an earlier suit as OS.No.75/2009 filed by some of the members of the family seeking the same relief under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that reached this court and a writ petition was filed and that writ petition was disposed of by this court granting permission to the

¶47

O.P.(C).No.688 of 2015 3

¶48

respondents to construct building in the property. Thereafter the suit was withdrawn. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed with some malafide intention to claim right over the property owned by public endowment and the trees are being cut since they are standing in a dangerous condition causing threat to the students coming to the school and a complaint has been made to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the same.

¶49

Admittedly there was an earlier suit as OSNo.75/2009 filed by some of the members of the family to which the present petitioners belong under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and later that suit was withdrawn. It is also seen from Ext.R1(d) order of this court in W.P.(C).No.16342/2010 dated 13.8.2010 that after hearing both sides this court has vacated the interim order of stay granted and modified the same permitting the school authorities to proceed with the construction of the building in the property but observed that in all other respects the order of stay will be in force. But the suit in which this order has been passed, has been withdrawn. So that has no consequence in this matter. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed by the petitioners claiming certain right over the plaint schedule property. They also filedIA.No.1177/2012 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property. That petition was dismissed by the court below

¶50

O.P.(C).No.688 of 2015

¶51

¶52

evidenced by Ext.P4 order and that was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in CMA.No.38/2013 evidenced by Ext.P5 judgment.

¶53

I have gone through the orders passed by the court below. On the basis of the available materials, it cannot be said that the order passed by the court below confirmed by the appellate court is perverse warranting interference at the hands of this court. But that will not prevent the petitioners from adducing evidence before the court below and the court below coming to an independent conclusion regarding the same on the basis of evidence. The school is being conducted in the petition schedule property. So this court at this stage do not want to pass any order of status quo as claimed by the petitioners as well. If any inconvenience is caused on account of the standing trees and if any complaint has been made regrading that aspect, those things will have to be considered by the school authorities in accordance with law as a public safety and the safety of the children coming to the school will have to be considered by the school authorities as well. However, considering the circumstances, this court feels that while confirming the order passed by the court below, directing the courts below to expedite the disposal of the suit itself as suit of the year 2012 within a time frame will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice as far as both the

¶54

O.P.(C).No.688 of 2015

¶55

¶56

parties are concerned. So, the court below is directed to expedite the disposal of OS.No.143/2012 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the court closes for summer vacation untrammelled by the observations made by the trial court as well as the appellate court in the impugned orders and arrive at an independent conclusion on the basis of the evidence available on record and dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

¶57

With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶60

Chimmandi Sree Neelakeshi Kunnathukal v. Nadarajan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chimmandi Sree Neelakeshi Kunnathukal v. Nadarajan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusalakumari Vs Viswambharan

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Gheevarghese Kuruvila Vs Sunnykutty

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs Lilly

Anilkumar R Vs Subhash Chandran

Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram Vs Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom