Disposed

Jose @ Jose Issac v. K.V Issac

Kerala HC19 Sept 2018OP(C)/725/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two Original Petitions (Civil) filed under Article 227 challenging an Appellate Court order that replaced a prohibitory injunction with a direction to maintain status quo in a property dispute. The Judge directed parties to maintain the interim order (restoring the lower court's injunction) pending the final disposal of the underlying suits and dismissed the petitions without

What did the court decide?

Direction to parties to maintain the interim order passed by this Court restoring the Munsiff's Court injunction pending disposal of the suits; no order as to costs.

Jose @ Jose Issac Vs K.V Issac — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 28TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 725 of 2018 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 21/2015 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA, DATED 19-12-2017

¶7

PETITIONERS - RESPONDENTS IN CMA/RESPONDENTS IN IA/DEFENDANTS IN

¶8

THE SUIT:

¶9

1 JOSE @ JOSE ISSAC, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. ITHAKKU,KULAKKATTUMADATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662.

¶10

2 SUNNY, S/O. ITHAKKU, KULAKKATTUMADATHIL HOUSE,KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT - APPELLANT IN CMA/PETITIONER IN IA/PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT:

¶13

K.V ISSAC, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, KULAKKATTUMADATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.ELAYATH SMT.RITAMMA MATHEW SMT.T.K.SREEKALA

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.09.2018, ALONG WITH OP(C).724/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.(C) No.724&725/2018

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

These original petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed in C.M.A.Nos.6/2016 & 21/2015 dated 19.12.2017 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Two suits were filed by the respective parties. O.S.No.474/2013 by the present petitioner as plaintiff for the grant of a decree of prohibitory injunction against trespass. The defendant, in turn, filed another suit in O.S.No.481/2013 for a declaration of prescriptive right of way through the property of the plaintiff. The parties are referred herein in their status in O.S.No.474/2013. A Commission was appointed, who, in turn, visited the property and reported that he could not see any way in existence, except an attempt to put up a new way. The injunction application filed by the defendant in his suit was later on not pressed into service. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff was taken up and granted a temporary injunction against the defendant against trespass. In appeal, the Appellate Court has confirmed the order in all respects. But, in the result portion a direction was issued to maintain status quo as on the date of suit instead of granting prohibitory injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff came up with these two petitions.

¶20

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has granted an interim order

¶21

O.P.(C) No.724&725/2018

¶22

¶23

restoring the earlier order passed by the Munsiff's Court. Now the trial is going on. In that situation, I am of the view that it is fit and proper to direct the parties to maintain the interim order passed by this Court till the disposal of the suit.

¶24

Original petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

O.P.(C) No.724&725/2018

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1.		DATED 01.10.2013 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT
		IN O.S. NO.481 OF 2013 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2.		DATED 04.03.2015 - A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.S. NO.481 OF 2013.
EXHIBIT P3.		DATED NIL. 10.2013 - A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.2715 OF 2013 IN O.S.NO 481 OF 2013, MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P4.		DATED 09.12.2013 - A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A.NO.2715 OF 2013 IN O.S. NO.481 OF 2013, MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P5.		DATED 15.06.2015 - A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A.NO.411 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.481 OF 2013, MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P6.		DATED 15.06.2015 - A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A.NO.4101 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.481 OF 2013, MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P7.		DATED 03.07.2015 - A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1631 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO.481 OF 2013, MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P8.		DATED 24.07.2015 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN I.A.NO.1631 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO.481/2013.
EXHIBIT P9.		DATED 07.09.2015 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1631 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO. 481 OF 2013 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P10.		DATED 19.12.2017 - A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.NO.21 OF 2015 PASSED BY THE SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
RESPONDENT'S EXHI	BIT	: NIL.

Jose @ Jose Issac v. K.V Issac

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose @ Jose Issac v. K.V Issac

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

Mohammed Feroz Vs State of Kerala

Vayankara Nirmala Devi Vs N. Sreeprkash

Girija Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs Sethunatha Sarma

Jose Issac Vs Biju

Rajesh Narayanan Vs Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Company Pvt.Ltd

Jaganadha Kurukkal Vs Bhavani Amma Santha