JOY JOSPEH Vs. FARIS P H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions in Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Julian Xavier, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 & 5 to 9, Sri.K.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.C.N.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6 herein, Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) , appearing for R-9 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R-10 State of Kerala.

(3.) The petitioners herein are defendants 1 & 5 to 9 in Ext.P-23 O.S.No.18/2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. Plaintiffs in the said suit are respondents 1 to 6 herein. The said suit is one for declaration of title and also for fixation of boundaries and also for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass and also for recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property to the plaintiffs jointly and allow the plaintiffs to jointly re-possess the plaint B schedule property from the 4th defendant (Divisional Forest Officer, Sandal Wood Division, Marayoor, Idukki district) /R-9 herein. Plaintiffs trace their title to the property by virtue of Exts.P-2 to P-4. It is stated by the petitioners that the first sale deed, Ext.P-2, was executed by a person on the strength of a power of attorney and the said person (Murugan) on the strength of power of attorney had executed various other documents, which were the subject matter of the Original Suit, O.S.No.124/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Thodupuzha, which has been filed by the predecessor-ininterest of the defendants 1 to 6. The said suit was decreed as prayed for vide Ext.P-1 and it is further stated that the said decree has become final between the parties. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that respondents 1 to 6 along with others have manipulated this in such a way so as to change the Building Tax Register (BTR) and other revenue records, which is the subject matter of Ext.P-21 W.P(C) .No.26193/2016 before this Court, in which this Court has issued Ext.P-21 interim order dated 6.8.2016 interdicting the proceedings of the revenue authority, changing the registry, etc. It is also further contended by the petitioners that proceedings are also pending before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha under Prevention of corruption Act, 1973, relating to the alleged illegal change of the registry and unlawful participation of the Government Officials in aiding the plaintiffs, etc. Thus the petitioners allege that the institution of the instant suit is a clear abuse of the process of court by the respondents without any clear right to sue and the petitioners would rely on Ext.P-25 enquiry report dated 14.6.2017 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted in compliance the direction issued by the said court in Ext.P-22 proceedings dated 21.11.2016. The petitioners would strongly allege that the plaint itself is liable to be struck off in view of the above said facts and circumstances. The trial court when applying its mind to the facts of this case has passed Ext.P-24 ad interim injunction order dated 20.6.2017 in Ext.P-23 Original Suit filed on 14.6.2017. By Ext.P-24 ad interim injunction order dated 20.6.2017, the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, has passed interim injunction against the petitioners herein from trespassing into a property, which according to them truly belongs to them. It is in the light of that the petitioners have filed in the instant Original Petition with the aforesaid prayers.