PRASANNAN Vs. SREELATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated, this the 22/12/2023 The defendants in the suit, O.S.No.447/2022, of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, are the petitioners herein. The suit is essentially one for declaration that a settlement deed executed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is void, non-est and invalid. Recovery of possession of Schedule B to F properties, upon declaring the plaintiffs title, is also sought for.

(2.) Along with the suit, the plaintiffs preferred I.A. No.1/2022 seeking an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from alienating plaint C to F schedule properties; from effecting further construction in plaint D schedule property; from obstructing plaint J schedule road; and from causing any obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property. As per Ext.P11 order, the learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.1/2022 in part, restraining alienation of C to F schedule properties and obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property by the plaintiffs. However, the injunction sought for from effecting further construction in plaint D schedule property was rejected. Both plaintiffs and the defendants carried Civil Miscellaneous Appeals from Ext.P11 order. By Ext.P14 common order, the Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants (petitioners herein) and allowed that of the plaintiffs (respondents herein), thus granting injunction from effecting any further construction in D schedule property as well. Ext.P14 common order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(3.) Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel for the respondents.