Kerala High Court
Sudarsanapuram Devaswom Owned ... vs Rajalakshmi Pillai on 2 April, 2025
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:28312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2024 IN OS NO.254
OF 2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD
PETITIONER:
SUDARSANAPURAM DEVASWOM OWNED PUNNASSERY KARINGAMON
ILLAM,ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY
PRESENT KARNAVAR, SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 70
YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PIN - 690514
BY ADVS.
M.R.MINI
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
NIVEDHITHA PREM.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 RAJALAKSHMI PILLAI
AGED 93 YEARS
D/O BHARATHI PILLAI, PARASWARATHU VEETTIL, KARICHAL
MURI, PAYIPPAD PO, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690514
2 VIJAYAKRISHNAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O RAMAN PILLAI, PARAMESWARATHU VEETTIL, KARICHAL
MURI, PAYIPPAD PO, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690514
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:28312
BY ADVS.
M.R.ARUNKUMAR
P.SHAMMI NAVAS(K/887/2001)
MINI V.MENON(K/25/1998)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:28312
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025)
The petitioner is the 2 nd defendant in OS No.254 of
2023 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Harippad. Respondents
are the plaintiff. The suit is filed for declaration and for
consequential injunction.
2. The plaintiff contended that they had a right of
prescriptive easement through the plaint schedule property.
The plaint schedule property is the temple compound of the 1 st
defendant. The case of the petitioner is that the 2 nd defendant
has obstructed the way to their house, hence the suit was filed.
3. The defendant entered an appearance and filed a
written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. There
was an earlier suit as OS No.249 of 2023, filed by the 1 st
defendant in the present suit against the petitioner herein for a
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner, the
defendants therein from using the temple compound as a way
to their property.
4. In both suits, applications for temporary injunction
were filed as IA No.1 of 2023. The trial court heard both the
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
2025:KER:28312
applications, and a common order is passed as Ext.P3. By
Ext.P3, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect
to the plaint 'C' schedule way as reported by the advocate
commissioner in Ext.C1 Commissioner report and a rough
sketch until the disposal of the suit. The respondents herein
filed CMA No.3 of 2024 and filed an application as IA No.1 of
2024 for stay of the operation of the order in IA 1 of 2023 in OS
254 of 2023. On 18.01.2024, the lower appellate court had
stayed the impugned order and issued notice.
5. During the pendency of the CMA, a gate was
installed, and thereafter the I.A.No.9 of 2024 was filed for an
interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent to
remove the gate placed on the west of the plaint 'C' schedule
pathway obstructing the 'C' schedule pathway. Though an
objection was filed to the said application, the Court below by
Ext.P8 directed to restore the status quo as per C1 commission
report dated 27.07.2023 failing which the plaintiff can execute
the same through the court.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that though the gate was put up at the time when the
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
2025:KER:28312
order in I.A No.1 of 2024 in CMA 3 of 2024 was in force,
whereby the impugned order directing the status quo was
stayed. It is also undertaken before this court that they will not
close the gate or block the way, thereby the petitioner will be
permitted to use the way as it is already found by the
commissioner in Ext.C1(a) report.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that
after the gate was installed, he is obstructed by the
respondents in using the only way to his house, which is
reported by the commissioner. So, unless and until the gate is
removed, the obstruction will still continue. Moreover, the
prosecution petition is pending. Therefore, the interim
mandatory injunction has to be implemented and the gate has
to be removed. When the petitioner has undertaken before this
Court that he will not close the gate or block the way unless he
obtains a favourable order from this court, is as good as as an
injunction order. The ground raised in this original petition is
extracted as follows;
"A) Petitioner submits that he has not violated the orders
of the trial court. The gate was put up at a time when the
order of stay passed by the appellate court was in force.
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
2025:KER:28312
By putting up the gate, the alleged way was not at all
blocked. Petitioner never had any intention to block the
alleged way. As long as the order passed by the court is
in force, petitioner will not do anything against the spirit
of the order. Petitioner undertakes that he will not close
the gate or blocked the way unless he gets a favourable
order from the court. As long as the order passed by the
court is in force, respondents herein can use the alleged
way for entry to their property without any interference
from the petitioner".
8. Therefore, in view of the undertaking given by the
petitioner herein, I am of the opinion that the parties are
directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint "C"
schedule as reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report till
the disposal of the suit.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
saap
OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024
2025:KER:28312
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2480/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.
NO.254/2023 DATED 01.07.2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.
NO.254/2023 DATED 03.09.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
07.12.2023 IN I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S.
249/2023 AND I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S.
NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 IN
I.A. NO.1/2024 IN C.M.A. 3/2024 ON THE
FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE-1, MAVELIKKARA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S.
NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD, DATED
NIL
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 11.09.2024 IN I.A.
NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF
COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED
25.07.2023 IN I.A. NO.2/2023 IN O.S.
NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN DATED 27.07.2023 IN
I.A. NO.2/2023 IN O.S. NO.254/2023,
MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND
PLAN DATED 02.09.2024 IN I.A. NO.7/2023 IN
O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 IN
I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254 /2023 ON THE
FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD
//True copy//PA to Judge
