VIJAYAKUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. SUNILKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P7 order is under challenge at the instance of the defendants in Ext.P1 suit (O.S.No.375 of 2015) pending before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. Respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. In the suit, the relief claimed is for a prohibitory injunction against the defendants from obstructing passage of a tractor and other implements for agricultural operations in plaint A schedule property through the plaint B schedule property. Ext.P2 is the exparte commissioner's report. A sketch is also attached to Ext.P2 report. It shows that plaint A schedule property is lying on the western side and the plaint B schedule property on the east. On further east of plaint B schedule property, Palakkad-Chittur public road passes through. Both plaint A and B schedule properties are surrounded by paddy fields. There is a small paramba (garden land) as part of plaint B schedule property, where a building used as a rice mill is in existence. Plaint B schedule property is surrounded by a compound wall and a gate is fixed abutting the road. Case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that tractor and other implements for agricultural operations will have to be taken to plaint A schedule through the northern side of plaint B schedule property and other adjacent paddy fields. Per contra, petitioners/defendants would contend that tractor and other implements can be taken through the paddy fields from another direction, through a passage situated 1/2 km. away. To buttress this contention, certain observations in Ext.P3 commissioner's report are relied on.

(2.) Court below, after considering the temporary injunction application (I.A. No.1356 of 2015), passed Ext.P4 order granting a temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Later, the respondents approached the trial court with I.A. No.1481 of 2015 complaining that despite the grant of temporary injunction order, the petitioners/defendants locked up the gate in plaint B schedule property so that they were unable to take tractor and other implements for agricultural operations to plaint A schedule property. As per Ext.P5 order, the trial court directed the petitioners to open the gate for enabling the respondents to take tractor and other implements for agricultural operations to plaint A schedule property. Court below considered the fact that it is a customary practice, prevailing among the farmers in Palakkad, to allow others to take tractor and other implements for agricultural operations through the paddy fields.

(3.) Aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the petitioners/defendants preferred C.M.A. Nos.82 and 89 of 2015 before the Additional District Court-V, Palakkad. As per Ext.P7 judgment, the lower appellate court considered the issues involved and found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. It was further directed that the suit shall be disposed within a period of four months.