Kerala High Court
As No.65/2010 Of The Additional ... vs Dhandapany on 8 April, 2021
RSA 359/2018 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Thursday,the 8th day of April 2021/18th Chaithra, 1943
IA 1126/2018 (IA 1/2018) IN RSA 359/2018(A)
For information purpose only
OS No.560/2008 of the MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR
AS No.65/2010 of the ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - IV, PALAKKAD
APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS
1.DHANDAPANY,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. PAZHANISWAMY GOUNDER, NALLURAKAD, MUNSIFF CHALLA
KALAM,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, VELANTHAVALAM POST,CHITTOOR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
2.MAYILACHAL
AGED 65 YEARS,W/O. PAZHANISWAMY GOUNDER,NALLURAKAD,
MUNSIFF CHALLA KALAM, VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE,
VELANTHAVALAM POST,CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
3.POOVATHAL
AGED 55 YEARS,W/O (LATE) MATHEESWARAN, NALLURAKAD, MUNSIFF
CHALLA KALAM,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, VELANTHAVALAM
POST,CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
4.PADMAVATHY
AGED 29 YEARS,D/O. LATE MATHEESWARAN, NALLURAKAD, MUNSIFF
CHALLA KALAM,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, VELANTHAVALAM
POST,CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
5.PRABHU
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) MATHEESWARAN, NALLURAKAD,MUNSIFF
CHALLA KALAM,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, VELANTHAVALAM
POST,CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1.DAISY FATHIMA
AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. JAYASEELAN @ APPADURAI, MANIYAKARAN
CHALLA, PARISIKKAL POST,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
2.WILLIAM YESUDAS
AGED 74, S/O. (LATE) PETER THOMAS,MANIYAKARAN CHALLA,
PARISIKKAL POST,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 557
3.PRAVEEN
AGED 41,S/O. WILLIAM YESUDAS,MANIYAKARAN CHALLA, PARISIKKAL
RSA 359/2018 2/6
POST,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT 678 557
4.JOSHUVA
AGED 35,S/O. WILLIAM YESUDAS, MANIYAKARAN CHALLA, PARISIKKAL
POST,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT 678 557
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the
For information purpose only
High Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the Respondents from causing
any obstruction to the Petitioner's user of the Plaint B schedule property in OS No. 560/2008
on the file of the Munsiff's Court,Chittur,as a cartable access to the Plaint A schedule
property,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 M/S P.B.KRISHNAN,
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, P.M.NEELAKANDAN, SABU GEORGE, Advocates for the
petitioner and of M/S K.MOHANAKANNAN, M.A.ZOHRA, Advocates for the respondents,
the court passed the following:
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------
RSA No. 359 of 2018
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
Call for the records.
Post for hearing on 14.06.2021.
IA No. 1126 of 2018
This is an application for temporary
injunction restraining the respondents/
respondents/defendants from causing any
obstruction to the petitioners'/appellants'/
plaintiffs' user of the plaint B schedule
property in OS No. 560 of 2008 on the file of
the Munsiff Court, Chittur, as a cartable
access to the plaint A schedule property,
pending disposal of this Regular Second
Appeal.
2. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the
judgment and decree passed by the Additional
RSA No. 359 of 2018
..2..
District Court-IV, Palakkad in AS No. 65 of
2010. The suit was one for injunction
restraining the defendants/respondents when
For information purpose only
they tried to obstruct the use of plaint B
schedule pathway. Initially, the trial court
decreed the suit. Challenging the judgment and
decree, an appeal was carried to the first
appellate court. The first appellate court
reversed the judgment and decree and dismissed
the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree
of the first appellate court, this Regular
Second Appeal has been preferred.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs and the
respondents/respondents/defendants.
4. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the plaint B schedule property is
the only cartable access to the property of
the appellants. It is further stated that on
the strength of the judgment of the first
RSA No. 359 of 2018
..3..
appellate court, the respondents are
attempting to cause obstruction to the user of
the pathway during the pendency of this
For information purpose only
appeal.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that there is no such
pathway in existence and after relying on the
documents and depositions, the first appellate
court reversed the judgment and decree of the
trial court. It is further contended that in
the resurvey conducted, the appellants have no
pathway through the property as contended by
them.
6. On going through the trial court judgment, it
is clear that the trial court appointed an
Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the nature
and lie of the property. Accordingly, Exts.C1
report and Ext.C1(a) sketch were submitted
before the trial court. Ext.C1(a) would reveal
the nature and lie of the plaint schedule
RSA No. 359 of 2018
..4..
properties including the disputed pathway. It
is a fact that the appellants have been
enjoying the disputed pathway as an access
For information purpose only
till the appellate court reversed the judgment
and decree in appeal.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants, this Court admitted the appeal on
12.04.2018 with respect to the disputed
pathway. In view of the facts and
circumstances, it is just and proper to
maintain status quo as reported by the
Commissioner in Exts.C1 and C1(a) until the
appeal is decided on merits.
Hence, both parties are directed to maintain
status quo as reported by the Commissioner in
Exts.C1 and C1(a) till the appeal is decided
on merits.
Sd/-
N. ANIL KUMAR
JUDGE
bka/08.04.2021
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
