IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1942 RSA.No.246 OF 2008 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22-09-2007 IN AS 41/2004 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23-03-2004 IN OS 5/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM REGULAR SECOND APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

KUNHIPARAMBATH SURENDRAN, S/O KANNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, TRADER, RESIDING AT KANNAN VILLA, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN REGULAR SECOND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

KUNHIPARAMBATH RAVEENDRAN, S/O KANNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH (ROY)

R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAWRENCE DCUNHA THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

01.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The question came up for consideration is whether it is permissible to injunct one of the co-owners with respect to their co-ownership property.

It is neither permissible nor advisable to injunct one of the co-owners except for the purpose of protecting the property or preventing waste or damage to the property. The Trial Court granted an injunction for protecting the property directing not to commit waste or damage to the property. The remaining part of relief sought was rejected on the principle that it is not permissible to injunct a co-owner except for the purpose of preservation and protection of property. The appeal filed by the plaintiff as against non-grant of the remaining part of injunction was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the very same reason. The present appeal by the plaintiff hence deserves only a dismissal. No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp //TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE