RAJAN A Vs. T K KUMARI KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants in O.S. No. 33 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P-5 judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Kozhikode confirming Ext.P-4 order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff, Kozhikode U, restraining the Petitioners/Defendants from alienating the plaint property till disposal of the suit.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to this writ petition may be summed up thus:

(3.) Ext. P-1 is the copy of the plaint. The case of the Plaintiff as per the allegations raised in the plaint is that her mother, late P.V. Madhavi leased out an extent of 10 acres of land, adjacent to the land leased to her, in favour of the Defendants. The Defendants applied for purchase of jenmam rights in respect of 10 acres of land. The Land Tribunal dismissed that application, but, on appeal preferred by them the claim of the Defendants was upheld. Though the Defendants were entitled to get pattayam over only 10 acres of land, the Land Tribunal ordered to grant pattayam for an area of 11.88 acres. An application moved by the Plaintiff and other legal heirs of late P.V. Madhavi to rectify the mistake was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. Against the order dismissing the application, the applicants have preferred an appeal as A.A. No. 72 of 2006 before the Appellate Authority and it is pending. Setting forth such a case, the Plaintiff sought for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction alleging that the Defendants anticipating a reversal of the order of the Land Tribunal are planning to transfer the suit property 11.88 acres, to defeat the appeal preferred by them. The excess land of 1.88 acres covered by the purchase certificate issued in favour of the Defendants over and above 10 acres, which alone was leased to her by late P.V. Madhavi, according to the Plaintiff, is part of the property leased to the Plaintiff by the above said Madhavi, her mother. The Plaintiff canvassing such a case and raising an apprehension as indicated above, sought for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the Defendants from "creating any documents purporting to alienate 11.88 acres in Rs. 50/2 of Olavanna amsom on the basis of the pattayam in O.A. No. 2844 of 1976 or otherwise, and from inducting any stranger into possession of any such property, till the final disposal of the proceedings under the Act for purchase of jenmam rights initiated by the Defendants".