Balakrishnan vs The Vicar, St. Mathews Church

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 726/1999 before the Munsiff''s Court, Muvattupuzha. The suit was for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property. The trial court appointed a commission to inspect the properties, who had submitted report and sketch marked as Exts. C1 and C1(a). After taking evidence, the trial court found that the petitioner did not have possession over the plaint schedule property, which is a rocky area and dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 29/2003 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha and moved a petition for temporary injunction. In that I.A, the Sub Court directed both parties to maintain status quo as per the commission report, until further orders. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A. No. 320/2007 alleging that the petitioner has violated the status quo order and seeking a direction to the petitioner to restore the property to its original state. The Sub Judge appointed the very same commission to inspect the property, who reported that after his earlier visit in the suit, some activities have been taken place in the property, which would amount to change in the status quo. Based on the same, the Sub Judge considered the I.A and found that the petitioner is in fact responsible for the change in the status quo of the property. On that finding, the Sub Judge directed the petitioner to restore the property to its original state. Ext. P6 order is under challenge before me.

According to the petitioner, he has not violated the status quo order. He would point out that he had specifically stated so in his objections to the I.A. He further points out that what has been done was done prior to the dismissal of the suit, that too, for protection of his balance property from soil erosion. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of Ext. P6 order.

I have heard both sides.

I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that there was no reliable evidence on the basis of which the Sub Judge could have found that there was change in the status quo in respect of the property. The very same commissioner, who had earlier prepared a sketch, status quo on the basis of which was directed to be maintained, was again deputed for inspection of the property, who had submitted Exts. C2 and C2(a) marked in the suit reporting that status quo had been actually changed. The Sub Judge, thereafter considered the question as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the change of the status quo. The finding in this regard is in paragraph 9, which reads thus:

Now the point to be considered is whether it is the respondent who has violated status quo order. Going by the objection filed by respondent it can be seen that the respondent has not specifically denied the allegation. The respondent has no specific case that he has not unloaded earth in the disputed property; but his contention is that the court has not restrained him from doing any acts in the disputed property and acts done by him are only lawful and legal. The definite case of the petitioner is that it is the respondent who violated the status quo order and unloaded earth in the property. The respondent has no case that somebody else has unloaded earth in the disputed property. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that it is the respondent who has unloaded and collected earth in the disputed property.

The petitioner''s contention is that the finding that he had not disputed the allegation in the I.A is not correct and that he had specifically denied that he had violated the status quo order.

I do not find merit in that contention. What he has stated in Ext. P5 objections to the I.A in paragraph 4 is as follows:

The tenor of the averments in the said paragraph is that he had in fact done something in the property, which, according to him, he was entitled to do as of right. The lower court found that in view of the status quo order, he was not entitled to do the same. In such circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the lower court directing the petitioner to restore the property to its original state. That being so, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext. P6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.