Kerala High Court
Arthur David vs Selvaraj on 25 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 989 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGEMENT DATED 08.04.2021 IN I.A. NO.02/2021 IN
CMA 30/2021 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
ARTHUR DAVID
0
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE THEPPILOS NADAR, VALIYAVILA KARAKKADU PUTHUVAL
PUTHEN VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE
UCHAKKADA POST, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 506.
BY ADV MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SELVARAJ
0
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LATE THEPPILOS NADAR, VALIYAVILA KARAKKADU PUTHUVAL
PUTHEN VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE,
UCHAKKADA POST, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 506.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 989 OF 2021
2
JUDGEMENT
Dated this the 25th day of May 2021
The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff before the trial
court filed an application for injunction. Injunction
application was dismissed which was carried in CMA No.30
of 2021. Along with that, the petitioner had filed IA No. 2 of
2021 for directing status quo to be maintained. That was
dismissed by Ext.P9 order, which is now under challenge.
2. It seems that the respondent is claiming right on
the basis of a compromise decree. The petitioner contends
that the above compromise decree has been obtained
without clarifying the actual right of the parties. Hence, in
the suit, relief sought is to set aside the compromise decree.
The appeal was also dismissed holding that there cannot be
any direction to maintain status quo.
3. To grant an order of status quo, the status as on
the date of passing the order has to be clearly ascertained.
No commission was taken out.
OP(C) NO. 989 OF 2021
4. Having considered this, I am inclined to direct that
construction if any made in the property by the defendant
will be subject to the decision of the suit. However, this will
not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh application
along with an application for take out commission and the
lower court will be free to pass appropriate orders on the
basis of status as disclosed from the commission report.
The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/25-5
OP(C) NO. 989 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SALE
DEED NO. 3416/1995 OF KULATHOOR SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
22.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KULATHOOR.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT WITH PLAN
IN O.S.NO. 856 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFFS CORUT-1, NEYYATTINKARA
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 865 OF
2015 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFFS
CORUT-1, NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 768 OF 2020
ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT
NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION IN
I.A. NO. 1 OF 2021 IN O.S. NO. 768 OF 2020 ON
THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2020 IN I.A.
NO. 1 OF 2020 IN O.S. NO. 768 OF 2020 ON THE
FILES OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.02.2021
IN WPC NO. 3608 OF 2021 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2021 IN I.A.
NO. 02/2021 IN C.M.A. NO. 30/2021 ON THE FILES
OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
