The Writ Petition is filed against the concurrent decision entered by two courts below on interlocutory applications moved by the rival parties in O.S.No.207/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. Plaintiff in the suit who suffered adverse orders concurrently in both the courts have preferred this writ petition impeaching the correctness of such order/judgment invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The first respondent in the petition (the first defendant in the suit) is the father and the petitioner (plaintiff) and 2nd respondent (2nd defendant) are his two daughters. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience. The first defendant/father admittedly executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on the eve of her marriage in respect of the plaint schedule property having an extent of one acre and 48 cents. The case of the plaintiff is that after her acceptance of that settlement deed, the first defendant surreptitiously and fraudulently executed a cancellation deed and, later, created two settlement deeds settling one half of the property in her favour and the other half in favour of her younger sister/2nd defendant. Impeaching the cancellation deed and also settlement deeds subsequently executed by the father/1st defendant, she filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and ancillary reliefs against the defendants. In that suit she moved two interlocutory applications, initially, one against the first defendant and later a separate application against the second defendant for interim injunction to restrain them from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the property. The first defendant, on appearance, filed counter to such applications and also moved another I.A. for injunction against the plaintiff setting forth a case that he has exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. No objection was filed by the second respondent to the I.A. moved by the plaintiff and also the first defendant. The learned Sub Judge after examining the materials produced by both sides in respect of their respective cases for the reliefs claimed in the I.A., and hearing the counsel on both sides, dismissed the two applications moved by the plaintiff and allowed the application for injunction filed by the first respondent/father. The learned Sub Judge, after appreciating the materials was of the view that prima facie there was no convincing evidence to show the acceptance of the settlement deed by the plaintiff and, further, there was reason to hold that the property continued to be in the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant even after the execution of that deed. Production of original settlement deed by the first defendant, despite its execution in favour of the plaintiff in 1996, and that no mutation was effected in respect of the property in the revenue records in the name of plaintiff was also taken into account to hold that she has no prima facie case for the discretionary relief of injunction, and that the first defendant having prima facie shown his possession and enjoyment over the property, on the materials tendered, is entitled to the injunction sought for. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, the plaintiff preferred appeals before the District Court, Trivandrum. The learned District Judge after evaluating the materials produced and hearing the counsel with reference to the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, concurred with the findings arrived by the learned Sub Judge with the result the appeals were dismissed. Impeaching the order of the learned Sub Judge and the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the appeals, the plaintiff has filed the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Normally