This appeal challenged an order of temporary injunction in a specific performance suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal and directed the lower court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits within three months.
Ordering the court below to try and dispose of the suit on merits within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940
FAO.No. 54 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2018 IN IA 727/2017 IN OS 25/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KOYILANDY
APPELLANT(S)/SUPPL.RESPONDENT NO.3
PARAKOOL MUJEEBRAHMAN S/O AMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, KEEZHARIYUR VILLAGE, KEEZHARIYUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 307
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1. MATAMPOTTAYIL AABIDA RESIDING AT THAIKANDYMEETHAL, D/O MOIDEEN, AGED 31 YEARS, SWASTHAM, THURAYUR VILLAGE, IRINGATH DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 523
2. IRANIKAKATH RASHIF
S/O ASHRAF, AGED 29 YEARS, KOCHI VILLAGE, FORTKOCHI DESOM, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 001
3. IRANIKAKATH ASHRAF FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN, KOCHI VILLAGE, FORTKOCHI DESOM, P.O. FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 001
R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO.No. 54 of 2018
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
| A1 | : | COMPUTER COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.9.2017 HAVING NUMBER 4464/17 FOR THE PERIOD 1.1.2013 TO 29.8.2017 |
|---|---|---|
| A2 | : | COMPUTER COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.2.2018 FOR THE PERIOD 1.1.2014 TO 14.9.2017 |
| A3 | : | COPY OF THE SUMMONS AS WELL AS ITS SERVING REPORT OF THE SERVING OFFICER DATED 12.1.2018 |
| A4 | : | COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER AS WELL AS THE SERVICE REPORT OF THE SERVING OFFICER DATED 18.11.2018 |
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: N I L
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
F.A.O.No.54 of 2018
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of an order of temporary injunction passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Koyilandy in I.A.No.727 of 2017 in O.S.No.25 of 2017. Appellant is the supplemental 3rd defendant. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract. Ext.A3 contract for sale was executed between the plaintiff/1st respondent and respondents 2 and 3. Pending the suit, respondents 2 and 3 transferred the property to the appellant for a valuable consideration. Appellant would contend that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property for value. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he wanted to construct a residential building in the property and he raised funds by sale of another property belonged to him. Learned counsel for the contesting defendants would contend that the agreement relied on by the plaintiff is not genuine. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/1st
2
FAO 54/2018
respondent contended that the property originally belonged to the plaintiff and it was assigned to the 1st defendant by a registered document. On the next day of assignment, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and 1st defendant to reconvey the property. While so, the 1st defendant, in violation of the terms in Ext.A3, sold the property pending suit to the appellant and hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE
JV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of temporary injunction and the pending suit for specific performance should be expedited for trial on merits.
Whether the suit should be disposed of within a specified timeframe.
Parakoool Mujeebrahman
Matampottayil Aabida
Iranikakath Rashif
Iranikakath Ashraf
A. Hariprasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
