‘Order has no legs to stand on’: Kerala High Court rescues couple’s property trapped in 3-year-old legal error
Kerala High Court ruled that a court’s mistake cannot prejudice third-party property rights and quashed a DV Act restraint affecting land already sold to buyers.
Kerala High Court property ruling: Observing that a court’s mistake should not prejudice third-party rights on a property, the Kerala High Court has overruled an interim restraint passed by a magistrate in a domestic violence case in 2022, which had inadvertently covered 2.43 ares of property that the family had already sold. The court said the 2022 order “had no legs to stand on” and effectively prevented the petitioners from enjoying access to their purchased land.
Justice C Pratheep Kumar was hearing a revision plea filed by a couple against the magistrate’s order in a matrimonial dispute granting an injunction restraint over 18.95 ares of the property, of which 2.43 ares belonged to the couple.
The magistrate directed the petitioners to approach the civil court.
Drawing on the celebrated maxim, actus curiae neminem gravabit, meaning no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the court, the Kerala High Court held on March 10 that the magistrate’s order had caused prejudice to the couple’s rights to the property.
How a 2022 DV Injunction Froze Land a Family Had Already Sold — And How Kerala HC Fixed It
Kerala High CourtDV Act · Section 19(1)(d)March 10, 2026
Property Ownership Chain · 3.93 Ares in Dispute
How the land changed hands
Respondents
Original owners
18.95 ares total
→
Easo V.G
Bought 2016
3.93 ares
→
D. Geevarghese
Bought Mar 2023
3.93 ares
→
Prasannan & Sushma K
Bought Jan 2025
2.43 ares
Timeline of the Legal Dispute
2016
Property Sale
Easo V.G Buys 3.93 Ares from Respondents
A valid sale transfers 3.93 ares from the respondent family — years before any DV case is filed. This land will later be caught in the injunction.
Apr 28
2022
Court Order
Magistrate Issues Blanket Injunction on 18.95 Ares
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Haripad, restrains alienation of all 18.95 ares under Section 19(1)(d) of the DV Act — unaware that 3.93 ares had already been sold in 2016.
Mar 20
2023
Property Sale
Easo V.G Resells 3.93 Ares to D. Geevarghese
The already-sold (and injunction-covered) land changes hands a second time — the court order remains unaddressed.
Jan 21
2025
Property Sale
N K Prasannan & Sushma K Purchase 2.43 Ares
The couple buy 2.43 ares carved from the original 3.93-acre chain via D. Geevarghese — a valid transaction, but their land sits under the 2022 injunction.
May 14
2025
Magistrate's Order
Relief Plea Dismissed; Couple Sent to Civil Court
The magistrate refuses to lift the injunction, citing no DV Act provision to declare title — misreading the couple's prayer, who only sought vacation of the injunction, not a title declaration.
Mar 10
2026
HC Verdict
Kerala HC Vacates Injunction; Order Had 'No Legs to Stand On'
Justice C Pratheep Kumar overrules the magistrate. The 2022 injunction is lifted from the couple's 2.43 ares. The same court that erred must be the one to fix it, the HC held.
⚖️
Legal Principle Invoked by Kerala HC
Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit
No one shall be prejudiced by an act of the court — the magistrate who made the error had a duty to correct it
A woman and her minor children had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, seeking relief against her mother-in-law and husband before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad.
On April 28, 2022, the court granted an interim restraining order against alienation or encumbrance over an extent of 18.95 ares of property, which it believed belonged to the respondents under Section 19(1)(d) of the DV Act.
Section 19(1)(d) refers to restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same.
However, unbeknownst to the court, a portion of 3.93 ares of the land had already been purchased by one Easo V G in 2016.
Later on, Easo sold the property to D Geevarghese on March 20, 2023.
On January 21, 2025, the petitioners purchased 2.43 ares of the said property through Geevarghese.
The petitioners in the current case – N K Prasannan and his wife Sushma K – approached the magistrate to vacate the interim order of 2022 with respect to the property purchased by them.
On May 14, 2025, the magistrate dismissed the application on the grounds that there is no provision in the DV Act to declare the title of a person, and directed them to approach the civil court.
Questions before court
Whether a magistrate entertaining a petition under Section 12 (application to magistrate) of the DV Act has the power to review his order to undo the mistake committed by him?
In other words, whether the magistrate is helpless in undoing the mistake committed by him?
Precedents referred
Om Prakash v. Union of India,2025: The court observed that a mistake committed by the court cannot stand in the way of one’s rightful benefit. It is not the party that commits a mistake, but rather the court itself. Hence, such a mistake cannot act as a barrier for the party to get its due relief. However, the court made it clear that the mistake must be so apparent that it does not brook any adjudication on the foundational facts.
Sreejith Mon v. State of Kerala, 2024: The court observed that the aim of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit was not only just to rectify the mistakes of the court, but also to make sure that the order or decree which was mistaken had not proved to be advantageous to one party and harmful to the other. It was further stated that no one shall suffer by an act of the court is not a rule confined to an erroneous act of the court; the ‘act of the court’ embraces within its sweep all such acts as to which the court may form an opinion in any legal proceedings that the court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law.
Order has ‘no legs to stand on’
In 2022, the magistrate passed an injunction restraining alienation and creating encumbrance over an extent of 18.95 ares of property – the premises that it believed belonged to the respondent family.
The petitioners in the case purchased 2.43 ares of the property from a person who had bought 3.93 ares of the land from Easo, who, in turn, had purchased it from the respondents in 2016.
It is evident that the 2.43 ares of property out of 18.95 covered by the 2022 order of the magistrate, belongs to the petitioners.
The magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s plea on the grounds of a missing provision for the declaration of title in the DV Act.
The petitioners suffered an order of injunction over the property they purchased for valid consideration.
The order passed by the magistrate has no legs to stand on and has caused prejudice to the petitioners in their right to enjoy the property; the same court has a duty to set it right by vacating the order of injunction.
The petitioners only prayed for lifting the order of injunction as against the property purchased by them and did not seek any declaration as stated in the order.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
The magistrate directed the petitioners to approach the civil court.
