[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
S. Joy vs Pandiammal on 8 January, 2026
O.P(C).No.3703 of 2013
1
2026:KER:948
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 18TH POUSHA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 3703 OF 2013
PETITIONERS:
1 S. JOY
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.SATHYANESAN JOSEPH, RESIDING AT
SANKUPURAYIDAM, 4 ROOMS LINES,
NALLATHANNY ROAD, MUNNAR,
K D H VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.
2 JAYASUDHA
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.JOY, RESIDING AT SANKUPURAYIDAM,
4 ROOMS LINES, NALLATHANNY ROAD,
MUNNAR, K D H VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.ASHA BABU
SMT.G.ASHWINI
SMT.AMMU CHARLES
SHRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR (CHELAKKADAN)
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SHRI.K.T.SIDHIQ
RESPONDENTS:
1 PANDIAMMAL
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.MAHALINGAM,
RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY,
LEKSHAMIKARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
O.P(C).No.3703 of 2013
2
2026:KER:948
2 KARUPPA SWAMY
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.MAHALINGAM, RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY,
LEKSHAMIKARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3 SAKTHIVEL
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.MAHALINGAM, RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY,
LEKSHAMIKARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
SRI. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH . GP.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
08.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P(C).No.3703 of 2013
3
2026:KER:948
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.3703 of 2013
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in MTOP No.82/2011 on
the file of the Munnar Special Tribunal. They are aggrieved by Ext.P4
order passed by the Tribunal.
2. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, if the petition is
disposed of by clarifying that the observations in Ext.P4 order will
not affect the final result of the proceedings, the petitioners would be
satisfied. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioners are
mainly aggrieved by the following observations:-
" The 2.93 acre plot in Ext. A1 document was
purchased by the first petitioner on 29.05.2002 from Status
Resorts. The land of one Johny abuts on the western boundary
of this plot as per the recitals in the document. But as per the
averments in the plaint this land alleged to be Johny's was
purchased by the second petitioner on 08.01.2003 as per
Ext.A2 document from one Suresh. It is not explained how the
land passed from the hands of Johny to Suresh. There is no
recital in Ext.A2 that Suresh obtained the land from Johny. On
the other hand Ext.A2 clearly says that the land was assigned
to him as per the proceedings of the special Tahasildar,
Devikulam in L.A 11/94. As per the boundary description in
2026:KER:948
Ext.A2 the land on the east of the plot in the document
belongs to Status Resort. But to go by the description in the
petition/plaint on the date of execution of Ext.A2 the land
lying on the east was the land purchased by the fist petitioner
on 29.05.2002 as per Ext.A1. Under these circumstances it is
impossible to believe that the plots covered by the Exts. A1 &
A2 are contiguous plots as claimed in the petition/plaint.
The commissioner inspected the plaint schedule
property and filed Ext.C1 report and Ext. C1(a) rough sketch.
But he was not asked by the petitioners for reasons best
known to themselves to identify the plaint schedule property
with reference to the four documents enumerated in the list of
documents shown in the petition/plaint nor was he asked to
ascertain whether the plots described in the documents really
constituted the plaint schedule property. The plots in Ext.A1
to A3 documents are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which can
never be rearranged in order."
3. After considering the impugned order and the
submissions made by the learned senior counsel, the Original Petition
is disposed of with the following directions :-
(a) Challenges against Ext.P4 order are not upheld.
(b) It is clarified that the observations made in the said
order are solely for the purpose of disposing of the
application under consideration and the final order in
the proceedings has to be passed untrammelled by any
of those observations.
(c) Considering the inordinate delay occurred in the
2026:KER:948
proceedings owing to the pendency of the Original
Petition, the court shall dispose of the matter at the
earliest.
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
Jms
2026:KER:948
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 3703 OF 2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR
INJUNCTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE R1/1ST DEFENDANT BEFORE
THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.26-7-2013 IN
MTOP 82 OF 2011 ON THE FILED OF THE
COURT OF THE MUNNAR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL.
