S. VALLINAYAGAM AND ORS.versusLUKE STEPHEN AND ANR.

A                        S. VALLINAYAGAM AND ORS.
                                          v.
                             LUKE STEPHEN AND ANR.

                                OCTOBER 23, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

         Suit for injunction--Restraining alienation of land-Need for cutting
  trees for canying on cardamom plantatio1r-Trial Cowt directed to appoint
  an advocate Commissione!'-()n receipt of his report, trial cowt to issue neces-
C sary directions to cut such mtmber of trees as may be required for unintemtpted
  cultivation of cardamom plantation and also such plants which are affected
  by pests so as to keep the plantation free from infection.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14551 of
    1996.
D
         From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.96 of the Kerala High
    Court in C.M.A. No. 68 of 1996.

            A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellants.

E           T.L.V. Iyer and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted.

            We heard learned counsel for both sides.
F
          This appeal by special leave arises from the Order of the Kerala High
    Court dated April 10, 1996 made _in CMA No. 68/96. This Court while
    issuing the notici; on July 30, 1996 stated as under :

              "Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he
G             has no objection as regards injunction restraining the petitioner
              from alienating the land of erecting or inducting third parties into
              possession. He says that his client has been growing cardamom.
              Unless some of the trees are cut or removed it would not be
              possible to carry on the cardamom plantation. Only to that extent
H             subject to any further condition may be imposed, the injunction
                                          660
                 S. VALLINAYAGAM v. LUKE SlEPHEN                        661

        may be vacated or suitably modified. We do not propose to go into     A
        at1this stage on this limited issue."

       Pursuant thereto, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent
stating that the appellant has obtained plantations of the cardamom. He
disbanded the entire lilbour force. Only two persons are kept in charge of
the plantations and, therefore, there is no need to cut and remove any trees. . B
Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the
appellant has been carrying on the planting of cardamom. The trees that
obstruct the· cardamom cultivation are required to be cut; similarly, the
trees afflicted with diseases have to be cut so as to keep an infection-free
atmosphere. Under those circumstances, it is necessary that he may be C
permitted to cut the trees. Shri Vishwanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel
for the respondent, states that since the cardamom plantations are required
to be done only in the monsoon season, i.e., June, July or March and April
and the first season is yet to start and since there are, at present, no crops,
there is no need to cut the trees. In view of the allegations and counter-al-
legations, we cannot set the matter at rest here. Under these circumstances, D
the trial Court is directed to appoint an advocate Commissioner to make
a personal inspection after notice to the parties and to submit a report
whether the cardamom plantations have been raised by the appellant and
if so in what extent of the land the plantations have been raised. On the
receipt of the report from the Commissioner with a finding that cardamom E
plantations have been raised, necessary directions should be issued to cut
such number of trees which require for uninterrupted cultivation of car-
damom plantations and also such of the plants which are affected by pests
so as to keep the plantations free from infection. The petitioner is required
to obtain crop loans. He could also obtain crop loans from the banks etc.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit by December 1996.            F
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The appellant is directed to
approach the civil Court with an application to appoint a Commissioner
forthwith. The directions given by the High Court for disposal of the suit
stand upheld. No costs.                                                       G
G.N.                                                   Appeal disposed of.