Soundarraj R vs Soundarraj R
2021 Latest Caselaw 3244 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                      OP(C).No.1851 OF 2020

  AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18-11-2020 IN I.A.NO. 2270/2019 IN OS
         168/2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD

                           -----------


PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:


      1      SOUNDARRAJ R.
             AGED 70 YEARS
             S/O.LATE RAMU GOWDER, SECURITY STAFF,
             AAVIN DIARY COMPLEX, 9/269, RUBY NAGAR,
             PACHHAPALAYAM, KALLAMPALAYAM POST, PERUR, COIMBATORE
             - 10. REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SIVANANDAN
             K., S/O.LATE KASU, KRISHNAKRIPA, JALADHA NAGAR,
             CN PURAM POST, PALAKKAD - 05.

      2      KANAKARAJ R.
             S/O.LATE RAMU GOWDER, SECURITY STAFF, AAVIN DIARY
             COMPLEX, 9/269, RUBY NAGAR, PACHHAPALAYAM,
             KALLAMPALAYAM POST, PERUR, COIMBATORE- 10 REP. BY THE
             POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SIVANANDAN K., S/O.LATE
             KASU, KRISHNAKRIPA, JALADHA NAGAR, CN PURAM POST,
             PALAKKAD - 05.


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
             SRI.LIJU. M.P
             SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:


      1      ATTU SELVA VINAYAKAR
             REP. BY THE KERALA VANAVASI VIKASA KENDRAM,
             REG.NO.61/79, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, PROMODKUMAR K.,
             GANAPATHY TEMPLE, JAINEMEDU, PALAKKAD - 678 012.
 OP(C).No.1851 OF 2020                  -2-




      2      THE KERALA VANAVASI VIKASA KENDRAM
             REG.NO.61/79, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, PROMODKUMAR K.,
             SAMANYA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD - 678 012.

             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.A.V.VIVEK
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2021,
ALONG WITH FAO.7/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                         FAO.No.7 OF 2021

  AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 168/2018 DATED 18-11-2020 OF PRINCIPAL
                     MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD

                            ---------


APPELLANT/PETITIONERS IN IA 2089/2020/DEFENDANTS:

      1.     R.SOUNDARRAJ
             AGED 70 YEARS
             S/O.LATE RAMU GOUNDER, 9/269,RUBY NAGAR,
             PACHAPALAYAM, KALLAMPALAYAM (PO), PERU,
             COIMBATORE-641010.

      2.     R. KANAKARAJ, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMU GOUNDER,
             9/272, RUBY NAGAR, PACHAPALAYAM, KALLAMPALAYAM, PERU,
             COIMBATORE - 641010.



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

      1.     ATTU SELVA VINAYAKAR
             REP. BY THE KERALA VANAVASA VIKASA KENDRAM,
             REG.NO.61/79, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, S.L. ANAND,
             S/O S.S.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, RUGLAK, MANALI,
             PALAKKAD - 678003

      2      KERALA VANAVASA VIKASA KENDREM, REG. NO.61/79,
             REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT PRESIDENT. S. L. ANAND,
             SAMANWAYA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD - 678012.


     THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1851/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
              O. P. (C) No.1851 of 2020 &
                      FAO 7 of 2021
          ==================
         Dated this the 29th day of January, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

Application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs

seeking permission to re-construct the Sreekovil- sanctum sanctorum of the temple situated in the

plaint schedule property, and the application filed

by the petitioners-defendants to restrain the

plaintiffs from demolishing the structures in the

plaint schedule property, from carrying out any

constructions and from committing any acts of waste

in the property were heard together and disposed of

by a common order. As against the order permitting

re-construction of the Sreekovil, the defendants

have filed this original petition. Challenging the

order on the injunction application, the defendants

filed CMA 112/2020 before the District Court,

Palakkad. The subject matter of both these

proceedings being one and the same, the CMA was

called for from the District Court for O. P. (C) No.1851 of 2020 & FAO 7 of 2021

consideration along with this original petition and

has been re-numbered as FAO 7/2021. Both these

proceedings are being jointly heard and are being

disposed of as per this judgment.

2. For the purpose of this proceedings, it is

not necessary to go into the disputed facts in the

suit. The plaintiffs claim title over the property

as per Settlement Deed no.4298/1986 executed by the

defendants and others. The deed is under challenge

in the counter claim raised in the suit. The trial

court passed an order permitting the plaintiffs to

proceed with the construction work carried on the

plaint schedule property on obtaining approved plan

and permit from the Municipality. The construction work relate to the Sreekovil- sanctum sanctorum of

the temple situated in the property. The existence

of the temple is not in dispute. Irrespective of

the rival claims between the parties with regard to

the title over the property, it is necessary that

the deity be seated with all its majesty. The re-

construction work of the sanctum sanctorum is to be O. P. (C) No.1851 of 2020 & FAO 7 of 2021

completed. The order passed by the trial court

permitting the plaintiffs to complete the

construction of the Sreekovil- sanctum sanctorum

after obtaining plan and permit from the

Municipality warrants no interference. However, it

shall be subject to the following conditions:-

(1) Apart from the construction of the

Sreekovil-sanctum sanctorum no additional

constructions shall be put up without the prior

permission of the court.

(2) The plaintiffs shall not be entitled to

claim any equity or cost of construction.

(3) No waste shall be committed in the

property.

No further directions are called for. The

original petition and the FAO are disposed of as

above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1851/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.168/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.647/1936 OF SRO, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.747/1936 OF SRO, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.4298/1986 OF SRO, OLAVAKKODE.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN EXHIBIT P2 SUIT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED TO THE COUNTER CLAIM.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION FILED IN THE SUIT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.2270/2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 SUIT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXHIBIT P8.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 18/11/2020 PASSED IN EXHIBIT P8 APPLICATION AND IA NO.2089/2020.

EXHIBIT P11 ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SANCTUM SANCTORUM OF THE TEMPLE AN THE BALALAYAM.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PLEADINGS IN CMA 112/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD

EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PLEADINGS IN IA 1/2020 IN CMA 112/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD

------------