The High Court of Kerala dismissed a regular second appeal challenging the granting of an injunction to a co-owner. The court held that injuncting a co-owner is impermissible except for preserving or protecting the property from waste or damage.
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.
RSA.No.246 OF 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1942
RSA.No.246 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22-09-2007 IN AS 41/2004 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23-03-2004 IN OS 5/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM
REGULAR SECOND APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
KUNHIPARAMBATH SURENDRAN, S/O KANNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, TRADER, RESIDING AT KANNAN VILLA, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
REGULAR SECOND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
KUNHIPARAMBATH RAVEENDRAN, S/O KANNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH (ROY) R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAWRENCE DCUNHA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No.246 OF 2008 2
JUDGMENT
The question came up for consideration is
whether it is permissible to injunct one of the co-owners with respect to their co-ownership property.
It is neither permissible nor advisable to injunct one of the co-owners except for the purpose of protecting the property or preventing
waste or damage to the property. The Trial Court granted an injunction for protecting the property directing not to commit waste or damage to the property. The remaining part of relief sought was rejected on the principle that it is not permissible to injunct a co-owner except for the purpose of preservation and protection of
property. The appeal filed by the plaintiff as against non-grant of the remaining part of injunction was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the very same reason. The present
RSA.No.246 OF 2008 3
appeal by the plaintiff hence deserves only a dismissal. No substantial question of law is
involved. The appeal fails, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether it is permissible to injunct one of the co-owners with respect to their co-ownership property.
KUNHIPARAMBATH SURENDRAN
KUNHIPARAMBATH RAVEENDRAN
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
