O.P. (C). No. 242/2014 and O.P.(C). No. 4479/2013 arise from the same order. I shall refer to the parties and exhibits in O.P.(C). No. 242/2014 for the sake of convenience.
2. This Court by Ext. P6 judgment permitted the petitioners to cut and remove aged rubber trees in 33 Acres of land forming part of the plaint schedule. The same was directed to be done under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner and the sale proceeds after defraying the expenses was directed to be deposited. It is not in dispute that the rubber trees have been so cut and replanting done by the petitioners in the 33 acres of land.
3. Ext. P6 judgment did not prohibit the petitioners from raising the intercrop of pineapple in the space between the rubber trees. The petitioners continued with the practice of raising pineapple cultivation in the space in between as is O.P.(C) No. 4479 of 2013 & O.P.(C) No. 242 of 2014 2 usually done in other rubber estates. This was objected to by the petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 4479/2013 who wanted to restrain the petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 242/2014 from doing the same. The Court below has by Ext. P10 order dismissed I.A. No. 981/2013 filed by the petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 4479/2013 and others observing that it lacks jurisdiction.
4. Propriety demanded the petitioners in O.P.(C). No.
242/2014 to obtain prior permission from the Court below or this Court before indulging in intercrop pineapple cultivation. But the fact remains that there has been no contempt or disobedience of any order in as much as the petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 242/2014 were not restrained at any point of time. Growing pineapple in the space between the rubber trees is a usual practice which does not deteriorate the value of the property involved in the litigation.
5. Interest of justice would be met by directing the petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 242/2014 to continue with the intercrop pineapple cultivation as desired without depleting the value of the property. The petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 242/2014 shall however file periodical statements in the Court below (once O.P.(C) No. 4479 of 2013 & O.P.(C) No. 242 of 2014 3 in three months) as regards the income and expenditure in regard to the intercrop pineapple cultivation also. There is no necessity to deposit the income so derived since the petitioners in O.P.(C). No. 242/2012 contend that it is required to run that part of the estate.
No further directions are warranted and O.P.(C). No.
242/2014 and O.P.(C). No. 4479/2013 are disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS