NALUPURAYIL ISMAIL Vs. RAJALAKSHMI K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in all these cases relates to a dispute in between the parties with respect to a commercial building built upon the properties belonging to two individuals. It can be seen that one was having 25 cents of property whereas the other person was having 15 cents of property. The properties were possessed as a single block by the owners. It is the case that they had obtained building permit from Vatakara Municipality for the construction of a commercial building complex. Thus, at this juncture M/s. High Born Infrastructures and Estates, an investor, builder came forward and agreed to construct the shopping complex by spending its own money. Accordingly, a tri-party construction agreement was executed in between the owners of the property and the investor on 29.8.2003.

(2.) Thus, it can be seen that the investment of the owners of the property was their land, whereas the builders' share was their expenses for the construction of the shopping complex. Originally, it was arrived at, that the share in between the owners of the land and the investor will be 46% and 54% respectively. The stages were fixed wherein it was agreed by the owners to transfer their right on the land by documents as fixed in the above said agreement. It is also shown in the agreement that in the building to be constructed, how the share in proportion to the above ratio is to be made and that was earmarked. The time for completion of the work was fixed as 1 - 1/2 years. As the dispute arose, O.S.No.105/2014 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Vatakara, for permanent prohibitory injunction by one of the shareholders, viz. Rohini. The said suit was for an injunction order restraining the defendants from transferring the right in favour of third parties and inducting any parties in the plaint schedule before completing construction of the building as per the agreement. Another suit as O.S.No.159/2015 was filed by another shareholder for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from transferring rights in favour of the third parties or inducting any third parties in possession of the building. Another suit was also filed as O.S.No.187/2015.

(3.) O.P.(C)No.1043/2016 is filed by the respondent No.2 in I.A.No.1075/2015. The very same petitioner filed O.P. (C)No.1044/2016. I.A.No.1075/2015 in OS 187/2015 is an application filed by the plaintiff in O.S.187/2015 under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC praying for a temporary injunction. As per the said order, the court below, by an interim injunction, restrained the respondents and his men agents and associates from occupying, leasing or transferring the rooms or doing any business in the rooms purchased by them in the building situated in the plaint schedule properties for a period of one month from the date of the order. The said order was challenged by the petitioner therein as well as by the respondent therein before the appellate court/District Court. CMA 5/2016 is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1043/2016 and O.P.(C) No.1044/2016. CMA 6/2016 is filed by the petitioner in OP(C) 745/2017, who is the petitioner in I.A.1075/2015 in O.S.187/2015. The appellant in CMA 5/2016 was aggrieved by the granting of injunction by the trial court whereas the appellant in CMA 6/2016 was aggrieved by limiting the injunction for a period of one month.