SAJEENA BEEVI, MOHAMMED KUTTY A., ABDUL SATHAR, S/O MOHAMMED MUSTHAFFA AND NIZAR, S/O MOHAMMED BASHEER Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

(3.) WE must notice certain facts in this case. The case of petitioners is built on Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.P4 documents of sale executed in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. The 3rd respondent has filed a civil suit O.S.31/2006 against the 6th respondent and others. The suit culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. In the said judgment the trial Court has dismissed the suit. It would appear however that in paragraph 43 of the judgment the Court has stated as follows: "In the above circumstances, it is found that the plaintiff has parted with his title to the Plaint Schedule Properties, however, he retains possession over the same and he is not entitled to the specific performance sought for and injunction sought for." Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that it is feeling aggrieved by the said portion apparently that the 6th respondent has preferred RFA 820/2010. Initially this Court while admitting the matter granted interim injunction against the 3rd respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. We notice however that subsequently by Ext.P6(b) the following order is passed.