Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
P.R.BINUMON – Appellant
Versus
A.B.SASI – Respondent
OP(C) NO.886 OF 2021 | OP(C) NO.1055 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH
For the Respondents: SRI.B.DEEPAK, SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.ACHUT M NAIR, SMT.A.MEGHA, SRI.KARTHIK BHAVADASAN
The court emphasizes the necessity of clear evidence for adverse possession in injunction cases, preserving interim orders during ongoing trials.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment reviews the provisions regarding injunctions under civil law, emphasizing adverse possession principles. Facts of the Case: The plaintiffs alleged adverse possession of property since 1990 against the defendants who later acquired it.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld that plaintiffs have shown grounds for interim relief, reversing the prior dismissal for an injunction.
Issues: The court considered whether the plaintiffs proved adverse possession for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the need for urgent trial, preserving the interim status until then.
Result: The order dated 08.04.2021 in OP
(C) No.886 of 2021 is made absolute and continued until the suit's disposal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the original petitions and property dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's directive on the urgency of trial proceedings. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
These Original Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 08.03.2021 in CMA No.42 of 2020 of the Additional District Judge-V, Kottayam, whereby, an interim injunction which was refused to the plaintiffs was reversed. The 3rd defendant has filed OP(C) No.1055 of 2021 and the 2nd defendant has filed OP(C) No.886 of 2021. The 1st defendant has not challenged the order. The properties originally belonged to the husband of the 1st defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiffs was that their predecessor, one Bhaskaran, had obtained the properties from the original owner for the purpose of cultivation. It is contended by the plaintiffs that from 1990 onwards the possession became adverse since they refused to surrender the properties to the original owner. It is stated that in 2019, the 1st defendant transferred the properties to the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant. The suit was transferees sought to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an application for injunction, which was refused finding that they were in permissive possession and the documents produced are not sufficient to show that the possession was adverse. The plaintiffs challenged the order by filing CMA No.42 of 2020, which was allowed by the Additional District Court, Kottayam granting an order of injunction.
3. When OP(C) No.886 of 2021 was admitted, this Court had granted an order on 08.04.2021 in the following manner :-
“Admit.
Issue notice to respondents by speed post.
Ext.P2 judgment against the petitioner dated 08.03.2021 in C.M.A.42/2020 is modified and limited to the extent of demolition of the shop rooms, cutting down and removal of trees and also commission of waste in the property until further orders. It is made clear that entry of the petitioner upon the suit property shall not be prevented.
Post on 21.06.2021.”
The said order has been continued till today. The suit is still pending consideration before the trial court. The suit is of the year 2019. No purpose will be served by keeping the suit pending and staying its trial. Interest of justice will be served if the suit is tried and disposed of at the earliest. Since the parties have been continuing on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court, the interest of justice requires that the interim order granted by this Court is continued till the disposal of the suit.
In the above circumstances, these Original Petitions are disposed of by making the order dated 08.04.2021 in OP(C) No.886 of 2021, modifying the order dated 08.03.2021 in CMA No.42 of 2020, absolute and the same is ordered to be continued, till the disposal of the suit. The Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam is directed to consider and dispose of O.S. No.702 of 2019, at the earliest, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
