JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the 2nd senior most male member of Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair Family. Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair Sthanam was the largest landlord in the State of Kerala before coming into force of Kerala Land Reforms Act. A partition suit O.S. No. 65/1956 was filed before the Sub Court, Ottappalam regarding partition of the properties of Mannarkkad Mooppil Sthanam. The family had apart from the landed properties, there are Devaswoms, Temples and Schools. KTM High School Mannarkkad and ALP School Mannarkkad which are functioning under the Kerala Education Act and Rules are schools of Mannarkkad Mooppil Sthanam. The properties in which the schools are functioning belong to the common property of the family is the contention of the petitioner. The properties and the school buildings are co-ownership properties and no person have any independent right over the said property except the co-ownership right is the main contention raised in this petition. The petitioner already filed an application for amending the scheme before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, which is pending consideration.

2. It is stated in the writ petition that the seventh respondent is not a member of the Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair Family. Admittedly, eighth respondent is the approved Manager of the school. The main prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 not to permit demolition or construction of any building in the compound in which the KTM High School, Mannarkkad and ALP School Mannarkkad is situated without any building permit applied for by the owners of the property. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the seventh and eighth respondents.

4. The short point raised by the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner is that the property in which the school is situated is a co-ownership property of the family members. If any construction is made in the school building, the permission of the co-owners are necessary. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh and eighth respondents submitted that a counter affidavit is filed by the eighth respondent denying the averments in the writ petition.

5. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the respondents. It will be better to extract paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the eighth respondent:-

“7. It is submitted that the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the writ petition are only partly true. Firstly, it is not correct to say that I have undertaken steps to demolish the school building. Ext. P3 photographs would expose the falsehood of the allegations of the demolition of the building. The work undertaken is only with respect to the staircase of the high school building to make it wider for the beneficial use of the students and teachers. There was a specific demand from the PTA of the high school to re-construct the stair case pointing out that the present narrow fleet of steps result in stampede and injuries to students. A true copy of the letter dated 23.02.2022 issued by the PTA president to me is herewith produced and marked as Ext.R8(a). Exhibit R8(a) would unmistakably negative the allegations against the construction activities undertaken at the school. Exhibit P3 photographs would show that the demolition is very much limited to the staircase portion of the building to enable the construction of wider, bigger and user friendly staircase. No existing building has been demolished by me. Speedy construction of the stair case is absolutely necessary in view of the ensuring academic year beginning in the months of June.

8. It is submitted that the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are not true. It is absolutely untrue to say that I have undertaken any demolition of construction wi