Kerala High Court
Sajimon Andrews Kottiri vs Paul Mathew on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
Friday, the 12th day of April 2024 / 23rd Chaithra, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN RSA NO. 187 OF 2024
OS 281/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA
AS 69/2020 OF SUB COURT,PALA
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
SAJIMON ANDREWS KOTTIRI, AGED 59,S/O ANDREWS, KOTTIRICKAL HOUSE,
RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 576
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. PAUL MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O MATHAI, KANAMKOMBIL HOUSE,
RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 576.
2. JAMES MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MATHAI, KANAMKOMBIL HOUSE,
RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 576 .
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to issue an interim
order of injunction restraining the respondents herein from obstructing
the applicant's use of item No.2 pathway scheduled to the plaint in
OS.No.281 of 2016 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala, pending
disposal of the above Regular Second Appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of Sri.P.B.KRISHNAN, Senior Advocate along with M/S.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN,MANU
VYASAN PETER, SABU GEORGE, B.ANUSREE, Advocates for the petitioner, and
Sri.R.SYLESHWAREN NAIR, Advocate for the respondents (B/O), the court
passed the following:
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
R.S.A. No.187 of 2024
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
ORDER
Sri.R.Syleshwaren Nair takes notice for the respondents. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Once the existence of a road on the southern side of the defendant's property in the east-west direction is established and it is also established that the plaintiff had purchased 40 sq.ms. of land, so as to enable plaintiff's access and right of way through the said pathway, was it not incumbent that the said 40 sq.ms. of land is measured and identified, be it as per document No.1156/1991 or as per Ext.A3 bearing No.2174/1991, for determining the real controversy in dispute between the parties? Has not the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court failed in getting the said extent measured out and identified, when there is a registered R.S.A. No.187 of 2024 2 document indicating purchase of the extent above referred?
(ii) In the facts, evidence and probabilities of the case, whether the finding of the trial court as well as the Appellate Court that the plaintiff failed to establish that a public pathway ad-measuring 40ft x 128ft is legal and proper. Call for the trial Court records. Post for hearing on 07.06.2024.
I.A. No.1 of 2024 Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that an order of status quo as on the date of the judgment of the First Appellate Court was directed to be maintained, which order was in force till 27.02.2024. In furtherance of the same, this Court directs that the parties shall maintain the status quo in respect of plaint item no.2 pathway until further orders.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP/12-04 12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar