S. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction are the appellants. As per the plaint allegations, they have residential plots in a residential colony by the name of Ayodhya Nagar, which was formed 25 years back and now consists of 40 residential plots. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 10 cents is inside the said Ayodhya Nagar, which is numbered as Plot No.19, and it is earmarked for park as per the Lay Out Plan approved by the Palakkad Muncipality. It was one Padmanabhan who developed the properties and obtained necessary approval for Lay Out Plan and as per the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 10% of the total area shall be kept for recreational purposes. The cause of action for the suit is that on 14/3/2010, the first defendant attempted to make construction in Plot No. 19, which was earmarked for the park in the residential colony. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant and her men from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule property and carrying out any construction activities therein.

(2.) The Secretary Palakkad Municipality was also impleaded as the nd defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant/Municipality remained ex parte.

(3.) The first defendant opposed the suit prayers by fling Written Statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaint schedule property is an exclusive ownership that is the possession of the first defendant The plaint schedule property is purchased from the legal heirs of Subramaniam, as per Ext.B1 of the year 1995. The Layout Plan developed and got approved by Padmanabhan is not binding on the said Subramanian or the first defendant. The plaint schedule property is an enclosed house plot with compound wall and gate put up in the year 1995.