Sudarsanapuram Devaswom Owned Punnassery Karingamon Illam Vs Rajalakshmi Pillai

¶1

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:28312

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2024 IN OS NO.254
OF 2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

SUDARSANAPURAM DEVASWOM OWNED PUNNASSERY KARINGAMON
ILLAM,ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY
PRESENT KARNAVAR, SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 70
YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PIN - 690514

¶12

BY ADVS.
M.R.MINI
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
NIVEDHITHA PREM.V

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 RAJALAKSHMI PILLAI AGED 93 YEARS

¶15

D/O BHARATHI PILLAI, PARASWARATHU VEETTIL, KARICHAL
MURI, PAYIPPAD PO, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690514

¶16

2 VIJAYAKRISHNAN AGED 60 YEARS

¶17

S/O RAMAN PILLAI, PARAMESWARATHU VEETTIL, KARICHAL
MURI, PAYIPPAD PO, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690514

¶18

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶19

¶20

2025:KER:28312

¶21

BY ADVS.
M.R.ARUNKUMAR
P.SHAMMI NAVAS(K/887/2001)
MINI V.MENON(K/25/1998)

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶24

¶25

2025:KER:28312

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

(Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2025)

¶28

The petitioner is the 2^nd defendant in OS No.254 of 2023 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Harippad. Respondents are the plaintiff. The suit is filed for declaration and for consequential injunction.

¶29

The plaintiff contended that they had a right of prescriptive easement through the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is the temple compound of the 1^st defendant. The case of the petitioner is that the 2^nd defendant has obstructed the way to their house, hence the suit was filed.

¶30

The defendant entered an appearance and filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. There was an earlier suit as OS No.249 of 2023, filed by the 1^st defendant in the present suit against the petitioner herein for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner, the defendants therein from using the temple compound as a way to their property.

¶31

In both suits, applications for temporary injunction were filed as IA No.1 of 2023. The trial court heard both the

¶32

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶33

¶34

2025:KER:28312 applications, and a common order is passed as Ext.P3. By Ext.P3, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint ‘C’ schedule way as reported by the advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 Commissioner report and a rough sketch until the disposal of the suit. The respondents herein filed CMA No.3 of 2024 and filed an application as IA No.1 of 2024 for stay of the operation of the order in IA 1 of 2023 in OS 254 of 2023. On 18.01.2024, the lower appellate court had stayed the impugned order and issued notice.

¶35

During the pendency of the CMA, a gate was installed, and thereafter the I.A.No.9 of 2024 was filed for an interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the gate placed on the west of the plaint ‘C’ schedule pathway obstructing the ‘C’ schedule pathway. Though an objection was filed to the said application, the Court below by Ext.P8 directed to restore the status quo as per C1 commission report dated 27.07.2023 failing which the plaintiff can execute the same through the court.

¶36

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the gate was put up at the time when the

¶37

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶38

¶39

2025:KER:28312 order in I.A No.1 of 2024 in CMA 3 of 2024 was in force, whereby the impugned order directing the status quo was stayed. It is also undertaken before this court that they will not close the gate or block the way, thereby the petitioner will be permitted to use the way as it is already found by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) report.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the gate was installed, he is obstructed by the respondents in using the only way to his house, which is reported by the commissioner. So, unless and until the gate is removed, the obstruction will still continue. Moreover, the prosecution petition is pending. Therefore, the interim mandatory injunction has to be implemented and the gate has to be removed. When the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that he will not close the gate or block the way unless he obtains a favourable order from this court, is as good as as an injunction order. The ground raised in this original petition is extracted as follows;

¶41

“A) Petitioner submits that he has not violated the orders of the trial court. The gate was put up at a time when the order of stay passed by the appellate court was in force.

¶42

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶43

¶44

2025:KER:28312 By putting up the gate, the alleged way was not at all blocked. Petitioner never had any intention to block the alleged way. As long as the order passed by the court is in force, petitioner will not do anything against the spirit of the order. Petitioner undertakes that he will not close the gate or blocked the way unless he gets a favourable order from the court. As long as the order passed by the court is in force, respondents herein can use the alleged way for entry to their property without any interference from the petitioner”.

¶45

Therefore, in view of the undertaking given by the

¶46

petitioner herein, I am of the opinion that the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint “C” schedule as reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report till the disposal of the suit.

¶47

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

Sd/BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶49

saap

¶50

OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024

¶51

¶52

2025:KER:28312

¶53

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2480/2024

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.
NO.254/2023 DATED 01.07.2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.
NO.254/2023 DATED 03.09.2024
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
07.12.2023 IN I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S.
249/2023 AND I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S.
NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 IN
I.A. NO.1/2024 IN C.M.A. 3/2024 ON THE
FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE-1, MAVELIKKARA
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S.
NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD, DATED
NIL
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 11.09.2024 IN I.A.
NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF
COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED
25.07.2023 IN I.A. NO.2/2023 IN O.S.
NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P7(a)TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN DATED 27.07.2023 IN
I.A. NO.2/2023 IN O.S. NO.254/2023,
MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P7(b)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND
PLAN DATED 02.09.2024 IN I.A. NO.7/2023 IN
O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 IN
I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254 /2023 ON THE
FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD

¶56

//True copy//PA to Judge

Sudarsanapuram Devaswom Owned Punnassery Karingamon Illam v. Rajalakshmi Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarsanapuram Devaswom Owned Punnassery Karingamon Illam v. Rajalakshmi Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy P.Joseph Vs the Power Grid Corporation of India

Rukhiya Vs Mary John

M/S. Vantage E Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vipinraj R

Benjamin C Joseph Vs Madhya Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India

Maryann Kunnathuparambil Jose Vs Jos Thomas Pallath

Vakkachan Abraham Vs Baiju Kalyani