Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 363 (KER)

K. P. Abraham v. Muraleedharan Nair

2026-03-11

T R Ravi

body2026
JUDGMENT : T.R. Ravi, J. These original petitions arise out of an interlocutory application filed in O.S.No.187 of 2024 before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. The suit is for declaration of title over plaint B schedule property based on adverse possession and for prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the enjoyment of plaint A schedule and B schedule. The interlocutory applications for injunctions were rejected and the plaintiff filed C.M.A.Nos.19 of 2024 and 20 of 2024. By common judgment, the appeals were dismissed. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court and by interim order, this Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been enjoying the property from 1970 onwards when he got title over plaint A schedule property. Plaint B schedule was adjoining plaint A schedule on the eastern side and according to him, he has been enjoying the property and has also cultivated rubber in the said property. He also has a claim that the property including B schedule is bounded on all sides by a kaiyala. The petitioner also admits the title of the 1 st respondent over the B schedule property and the property on the further east till the canal. It is submitted that almost half of the property belonging to the 1 st respondent has been excavated and the remaining portion is the portion which is in possession of the petitioner. At this stage the court is only concerned with who was in actual possession of the property. To show that the petitioner was in possession, it is submitted that the 1 st respondent had earlier filed a suit as O.S.No.46 of 2020 with a prayer for an injunction against the petitioner from interfering with the plaint schedule property in the said suit, which includes plaint B schedule property in the suit. The petitioner entered appearance and put forward the case that the petitioner is in actual possession. A Commission was taken out and a report has also been filed. At that stage the 1 st respondent has filed an application for amending the plaint in the suit by including a prayer for recovery of possession. In the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated that pending the suit, the petitioner had trespassed into the property and taken possession of the B schedule on 23.03.2022. At that stage the 1 st respondent has filed an application for amending the plaint in the suit by including a prayer for recovery of possession. In the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated that pending the suit, the petitioner had trespassed into the property and taken possession of the B schedule on 23.03.2022. According to the petitioner, in 2024 the petitioner noticed a fencing put up on the western side of the plaint B schedule property. Even though an application for amendment was filed the 1 st respondent executed two documents in favour of the 2 nd respondent whereby the plaint B schedule property was transferred. The documents would show that the western boundary of the plaint B schedule belongs to the mother of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1 st respondent fully knew that the property belongs to the petitioner since even in the suit filed by the 1 st respondent, the western portion is shown as belonging to the petitioner. The submission is that even without having possession and having approached the court for recovery of possession, documents have been executed which is mischievous and intended to defeat the case of the petitioner. It is hence submitted that even if the possession from 1970 is not accepted, at least from 2022, admittedly, the petitioner was in possession and such document could not have been executed. Soon after the documents were executed, the 1 st respondent filed an application stating that he is not interested in prosecuting the suit and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It was at that stage that the petitioner filed O.S.No.187 of 2024. 3. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the application filed for amending the plaint was a mistake and as a matter of fact, the 1 st respondent was in possession of the entire plaint schedule property in O.S.No.46 of 2020. It is submitted that it is being convinced that he was in possession, that the suit was withdrawn. The above argument cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. The suit was originally filed for injunction. The threat of trespass was very much there when the amendment for recovery was filed. Even if the contention that the 1 st respondent was convinced of his possession is accepted, that would only relate to the amendment application, which he could have withdrawn. The suit was originally filed for injunction. The threat of trespass was very much there when the amendment for recovery was filed. Even if the contention that the 1 st respondent was convinced of his possession is accepted, that would only relate to the amendment application, which he could have withdrawn. The fact that the entire suit is withdrawn shows the mischief involved. It is virtually an admission regarding the possession, which was sought to be removed by an ingenious method of withdrawing the suit itself. 4. Coming to the orders passed by the court, relief has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any document to prove his possession. What has been overlooked is the fact that the petitioner's case itself is based on adverse possession and not based on any document. The petitioner could not have been expected to produce documents to show his possession over the property. The question that will have to be decided in the suit is regarding the contention regarding adverse possession. This Court need not go into those aspects at this stage. The rights of both the parties have been sufficiently secured by an interim order which has been granted by this Court. In the above circumstances, all that is required to be done is to ensure that the suit is disposed of at the earliest. Even though the suit is of 2024, I find that it is virtually a continuation of a dispute which started in 2020 when the earlier suit O.S.No.46 of 2020 was filed. In the above circumstances, these original petitions are disposed of with the following directions: a. The interim order granted by this Court is made absolute and will continue till the disposal of the suit. b. The Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor is directed to dispose of O.S.No.187 of 2024 at the earliest, at any rate, within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c. The interim orders granted in O.S.No.187 of 2024 by the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor and confirmed in C.M.A.Nos.19 of 2024 and 20 of 2024 by the Sub Court, Perumbavoor stand modified by the interim order granted by this Court.