Kerala High Court
Jenin Mon vs Ibrahim E.A on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(C).No.368 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA NO.11/2019 IN THE COURT OF SUB-JUDGE,
PERUMBAVOOR IN I.A.NO.1697/2018 IN OS 330/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 JENIN MON,
AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O.DANIEL VARGHESE, VANDANATHIL, WEST VENGOLA P.O.,
VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
2 DANIEL VARGHESE,
AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O.VARKEY, VANDANATHIL, WEST VENGOLA P.O., VENGOLA
KARA, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.C.DEVASIA
SMT.ANCY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 IBRAHIM E.A.,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.ALIYAR, ERUPPAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,
PALLIKKARA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
TALUK, PIN-683 565.
2 ALIYAR,
AGED 65 YEARS,
ERUPPAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA
KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-
683 565.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.JAVED HAIDER
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.B.ANUSREE
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No.368 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by
Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the courts below
have filed this O.P invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
2. Plaint A and B schedule properties in
O.S.No.330 of 2018 pending before the Munsiff's
Court, Perumbavoor were claimed by plaintiffs to
be in their possession. Plaintiffs sought for a
decree for permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining the defendants/respondents herein
from interfering with operation of crusher unit
in plaint A schedule and from trespassing upon
plaint B schedule and also deterring operation
of petrol pump. The respondents denied
possession and contended that the suit was filed
by the plaintiffs suppressing material facts.
3. Looking at Exts.P7 and P8 orders, it is
seen that both courts below went into the
disputed possession and found that the
plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie
case. It was also held that the material facts
as to possession were suppressed by the
plaintiffs.
4. After hearing the learned counsel
appearing on both sides for some time, I am
satisfied that there is nothing which justifies
interference with the concurrent finding of the
courts below as to prima facie case in favour of
the respondents. However, I make it clear that
the finding as to possession cannot be
acknowledged as conclusive in as much as it was
rendered in the context of examining the
existence of prima facie case which is the sole
criterian for deciding a petition filed under
Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.
In the result, this OP(C) fails and it is
dismissed. It is directed that the court below
shall dispose of O.S.330 of 2018 as
expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by the
findings as to possession in the impugned orders
challenged in this O.P.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR,
JUDGE
pm
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS
NO.330/2018 DATED 12.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED
30.03.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED
10.10.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
20.06.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS
NO.337/2017 DATED 20.06.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.34/2018
DATED 01.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA
NO.11/2019 DATED 2401.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA
NO.1697/2018 IN OS NO.330/2018 DATED
23.05.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
