AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Basheer, J.—When these two appeals which arise from a common judgment came up for admission, they were taken up for final hearing as agreed by learned Counsel on either side. Since the parties and the issue involved in them are common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The bone contention in these two appeals is the transformer erected by the Kerala Electricity Board in the property which originally belonged to the common appellant. The appellant who has admittedly assigned the property in favour of respondent No. 1, objected to the request made by the latter to shift the said transformer from the middle of the property to the south east corner, contending that the transaction had not yet been completed and that he continues to be the owner.
It is on record that the parties had locked horns earlier in OS No. 458 of 2003 which was a suit for injunction filed by the appellant against respondent No. 1. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Court and the appeal preferred against the decree and judgment is now pending as AS No. 276 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Kottarakkara.
A part from the above, it is also the admitted position that the appellant has filed OS No. 313 of 2008 against respondent No. 1 for declaration of his title to the property. The said Suit is also admittedly pending before the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Kottarakkara.
As mentioned earlier, the Kerala State Electricity Board took steps to shift the transformer from the middle of the property to the south east corner on the request made by respondent No. 1. Since this move was resisted by the appellant, ultimately ended up in two Writ Petitions at the instance of the appellant and respondent No. 1 before this Court.
The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and considering the rival contentions took the view that the proposal to shift the transformer need not be interdicted at this stage. However, it was made clear by the learned Single Judge that such shifting will be subject to the result of the suit and the appeal pending before the respective Civil courts. It was further made clear that the shifting would not confer any right whatsoever on the respondent/assignee.
We have carefully perused the entire materials available on record and heard learned Counsel on both sides at length.
In our view, the learned Single Judge has adverted to all the relevant aspects of the matter in the right perspective and therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion made by the learned Single Judge. However, in addition to the safe guards provided by the learned Single Judge in favour of the parties, we make it further clear that if in case the appellant ultimately succeeds in the civil litigation and is declared to be the absolute owner of the property notwithstanding the assignment deeds executed by him in favour of respondent No. 1, and if he intends to shift the transformer from the corner of the property to its original position in the middle, respondent No. 1 shall meet the expenses for such shifting.
It will now be open to the Kerala State Electricity Board to proceed with the proposed shifting of the transformer from the middle of the property to the south east corner as requested by respondent No. 1.
With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the Writ Appeals are closed.