Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Later, Ext.B2 correction deed No.1528 of 1991 was also executed correcting the re-survey number mistakenly entered in Ext.B1. The recitals of Ext.B2 would show that the said correction deed is also executed with the permission of that court, as per the Report No.4/90 submitted by the Receiver. O.S.No.112 of 1979  was a suit for partition of the property of Purameri Kovilakam, in which Receiver was appointed for the administration of the property and for partition. Ext.B13 judgment of the Sub Court, Vatakara in O.S.No.152 of 1994 would show that, the plaint schedule property with a water tank which originally belonged to Purameri Kovilakam Elamasthanam is assigned to the plaintiffs in that suit, who are the respondents/defendants in this case, as per assignment deed No.300 of 1985 dated 18.02.1985.

12. The lower appellate court found that, the documents already on record would show that ever since the transfer under Ext.B1 assignment deed No.300 of 1985, the defendants are in possession of the property, and the plaintiff came into possession and management of the temple only in the year 2002, much after Ext.B1 deed, which is a deed approved and ratified by the court in  the proceedings in O.S.No.112 of 1979, which was a suit for partition of the property of Purameri Kovilakam. The plaintiff cannot acquire any property other than that was transferred by Ext.A2 deed and it cannot have a claim different and distinct from that of Koumudi Thampuratti, the expectant in Ext.A2 deed.

13. After considering the materials on record, the lower appellate court arrived at a conclusion that, the defendants are in possession of the plaint schedule property, which is a pond originally belonged to Purameri Kovilakam, by way of a sale conducted by the Receivers in O.S.No.112 of 1979, and they are in possession of the said property ever since 1985. Therefore, an order of injunction, even if it is limited to the right of transfer of plaint schedule property, will no doubt cause irreparable loss and hardship to the defendants. Since there is nothing to show, prima facie, that the plaintiff has got any right over the pond and it is shown that the defendants are in settled possession over the plaint schedule property, the aspect of irreparable loss and hardship and also the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff.  Accordingly, the lower appellate court, by Ext.P8 judgment dismissed C.M.A.No.3 of 2017.