Kerala High Court
Leela Antharjanam vs Nangayya Antharjanam on 15 September, 2022
Author: M.R.Anitha
Bench: M.R.Anitha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
Thursday, the 15th day of September 2022 / 24th Bhadra, 1944
IA.NO.2/2022 IN RSA NO. 1279 OF 2019
OS 212/2006 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
AS 79/2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA
APPLICANTS/8TH & 9TH RESPONDENTS:
1. SUBRAHMANYAN NAMBOODIRI @ THUPPAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN
NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHAKKEPULLAMVAZHI ILLAM, PILAPPUZHA MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE, PIN -
690 514.
2. PARVATHY JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. SREEKUMARI ANTHARJANAM,
KIZHAKKEPULLAMVAZHI ILLAM, NOW RESIDING AT KALLAMPALLY ILLAM, (AREEPPURATHU
MADOM), CHAMBAKKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - PIN-688 505.
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 TO 7:
1. LEELA ANTHARJANAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O. UMADEVI ANTHARJANAM, MOODAMPADI
ILLOM, PILAPPUZHA MURI, HARIPPAD VILLAGE, PIN - 690 514.
2. NANGAYYA ANTHARJANAM, AGED 75 YEARS, D/O. UMADEVI ANTHARJANAM, PAZHAYADATHU
MADOM, KURATTIKKADU MURI, MANNAR PIN-689 641.
3. UMADEVI ANTHARJANAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, D/O. UMADEVI ANTHARJANAM, MUNDAKKAL
MADATHIL, CHERUKOLE MURI, CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY -PIN-689 641.
4. SUBHADRA ANTHARJANAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O. UMADEVI ANTHARJANAM,
PARAZHIVETTATHU MANA, VENGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 546.
5. S. SREEKUMAR,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM, HOUSE
NO.34/501(500A), AKSHARA, PADIVATTOM, EDAPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM PIN- 682 024.
6. S.HARIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM, NEW NO.156, KAMARAJ
AVENUE, 2ND STREET, ADIYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020.
7. S. CHANDRIKADEVI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O. SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM, MADASSERI
MANA, KARUKANDOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, MOOVATTUPUZHA PIN-689 691.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High
Court be pleased to pass an order restraining the respondents, their henchmen or anybody under
them trespass into plaint schedule property and building situated therein,from taking usurps from
the property and from committing waste, in the best interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit filed in
support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.P.HARIDAS, Advocate for the petitioners in
IA/ R8 & R9 in RSA and of SRI.V.P.EASANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD,Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in
IA/Appellant in RSA, the court passed the following:
M.R.ANITHA, J.
----------------------------------------
I.A. No.2 of 2022
in
R.S.A. No.1279 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022
ORDER
Petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners/8th and 9th respondents for restraining the respondents/appellant and respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and building situated therein and taking usufructs from the property and from committing waste in the property.
2. The 8th respondent filed supporting affidavit contending that the father died on 18.6.2022 and taking advantage of the situation on 08.7.2022 and 13.7.2022 1st respondent/appellant along with her husband and son trespassed into the plaint schedule property and caused damage to the building by breaking open the doors and also had stolen coconuts and other usufructs from the property.
3. When the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel R.S.A. No.1279 of 2019 2 for the petitioner contended that he is pressing the relief only against 1st respondent/appellant and her men.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as 1 st respondent/appellant. Having regard to the averments in the petition and facts and circumstances of the case, interim injunction as sought for is granted against the 1 st respondent/appellant and her men.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA JUDGE SMF 15-09-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar