Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20230
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
URAKAM NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY @ URAKAM NSS KARAYOGAM – Appellant
Versus
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY – Respondent
OP(C) 246/2024
Parties must maintain the status quo during litigation, and altering it without court approval is improper.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure 151 - The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo pending litigation, ruling that the act of obstructing entry to property owned by one party constitutes an unjust alteration without court permission, despite ongoing claims to property ownership.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for injunction against defendants occupying a property they claim ownership, following disaffiliation from a society. The district court denied interim relief to remove a lock placed by defendants to secure the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lock was a recent imposition to obstruct the petitioner and emphasized that changing the status quo without court permission was improper, while also noting that full property ownership claims would be settled in ongoing appellate proceedings.
Issues: Whether the respondents could lawfully place a lock on the property during ongoing litigation without court permission, thus altering the status quo.
Ratio Decidendi: Respondents acted improperly in altering the status quo by locking the property without judicial permission; the property dispute and claims of ownership are still in litigation.
Final Decision: The court ordered the respondents to surrender the key to the lock and directed the district court to expedite the consideration of the pending appeal.
Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.
No.580/2022 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur and the appellant in C.M.A. No.99/2023 pending before the 3 rd Additional District Court, Thrissur. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext P11 order of the said District Court, which refused petitioner's application to remove the lock and chain put in the gate of the scheduled premises, thereby preventing the petitioner's entry into the said property.
The essential facts:-
2. The Suit O.S. No.580/2022 was preferred by the Urakam Nair Service Society @ Urakam N.S.S.
Karayogam, represented by its President. The 1 st defendant in the suit is the Nair Service Society, Perunna, Changanassery, represented by its General Secretary. The 2 nd defendant is the N.S.S., Thrissur Taluk Union, represented by its Secretary.
Defendants 3 and 4 are two local inhabitants, who are taking side with and are aiding defendants 1 and 2. The suit was filed for an injunction simplicitor, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from doing any mischief therein. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 4.25 Ares, with a building therein. It is the plaintiff's case that, the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. The plaintiff Society was originally affiliated to the 1 st defendant N.S.S.
Karayogam with registration No.2016. In the year 2017, by a unanimous resolution, the members of the plaintiff Society got itself extricated from the 1 st defendant N.S.S. Karayogam Changanassery and formed an independent organization by name Urakam Nair Service Society @ Urakam N.S.S. Karayogam. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, the building situated in the plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiff was renovated and even the Panchayat used to conduct official functions in that building. There is an ambulance with mobile mortuary facility, which belongs to the plaintiff Society. The property as well as its assets including the ambulance etc. are in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff Society, is the claim espoused. Apprehending mischief on the hands of the defendants, the suit was filed. Along with the suit, I.A. No.2/2022 was filed before the 2 nd Additional Munsiff’s Court seeking an ad interim order of injunction, which was allowed vide Ext P4.
However, the same was vacated vide Ext P7 order, after hearing both the parties, pursuant to the defendants entering appearance and filing counter.
The learned Munsiff found that the property was in the name of the N.S.S. Karayogam, Changanassery from 1977 onwards and that, as per the bye-laws of the 1 st defendant N.S.S., if any constituent Karayogam gets disaffiliated, then the assets of the Karayogam will belong to another Karayogam, which is affiliated to the 1 st defendant N.S.S.
Karayogam. The learned Munsiff found that, upon the so claimed formation of the plaintiff Society, the assets of the erstwhile 1 st defendant Karayogam will not automatically become the assets of the plaintiff Society. Thus, the 1 st defendant N.S.S.
Karayogam was held to be the title holder and injunction sought for as against the title holder was refused. Challenging Ext P7 order, a C.M.A.
was preferred before the District Court, Thrissur as C.M.A. No.99/2023. The same is pending consideration.
3. While so, it is the allegation of the petitioner/plaintiff that, respondents 3 and 4 (defendants 3 and 4), with the aid of some local men, put a chain and lock in the gate of the petition schedule property, so as to obstruct the entry and usage of the property by the petitioner/appellant. The petitioner accordingly filed an interim application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking removal of the chain and lock put on the gate of the plaint schedule property, pending consideration of the C.M.A. A counter was filed by the respondents inter alia averring that the respondents being
