4 min readNew DelhiJun 24, 2026 07:34 PM IST
First published on: Jun 24, 2026 at 05:00 PM IST
Observing that the dispute was magnified by ego clashes, the Kerala High Court recently disposed of a plea filed by a homeowner seeking action against a neighbour’s coconut tree and directed the parties to settle the dispute over a cup of tea.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan was hearing a petition filed by a Thiruvananthapuram resident, who alleged that a coconut tree standing in his neighbour’s property posed a danger to his family and property.
Quoting the phrase, “Love your neighbour as yourself”, from the Bible, the court said on June 18, “Let the petitioner and the 9th respondent read the above holy words from the Bible and sit together over coffee or tea to resolve the dispute”.
Although the court remarked that the matter was fit for imposing costs on both parties for wasting judicial time, it ultimately refrained from doing so, taking a lenient view.
“If a coconut tree has the capacity to laugh, the coconut tree might have laughed towards these fighting neighbours. If it had the capacity to fall after a wind, it might have done so to prevent neighbours from fighting over its existence. The ego seems far less flexible than the coconut tree in question,” the high court observed.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said the petitioner’s grievance has clearly been magnified by the personal differences and ego clashes between neighbouring families.
According to the petitioner, coconuts that kept falling from a tree on his neighbour’s land had damaged his vehicles, and he had repeatedly approached the panchayat, revenue authorities and the ombudsman for local self-government institutions regarding the matter before moving the high court.
During the proceedings, the high court appointed an advocate commissioner after the petitioner expressed willingness to bear the expense. The commissioner inspected the site and reported that although the coconut tree stood close to the common boundary, it was well-rooted and did not pose any imminent danger of falling.
The commissioner further submitted that the tree had been tied with an iron wire so that it leaned towards the owner’s property, and a protective iron net had been installed to prevent coconuts from falling into the petitioner’s premises.
According to the report, if the width of the iron net is increased and if routine and periodic cleaning of the tree is continued, the dispute may be effectively resolved. Dissatisfied with the report, the petitioner filed an objection to the commissioner’s report.
Court’s findings
- The case represents a classic example of unnecessary litigation arising out of a trivial neighbourhood dispute at a time when courts were burdened with serious matters.
- The petitioner’s grievance has clearly been magnified by the personal differences and ego clashes between neighbouring families.
- Stressing that the law could not substitute basic neighbourly goodwill, the court noted that the neighbours are expected to live in mutual trust and co-operation, especially when they must share boundaries, roads, and resources in a close-knit community.
- It also took note of earlier panchayat proceedings and the ombudsman’s directions stating that the tree leaning towards the petitioner’s property can be remedied by tying it towards the owner’s property using an iron string.
Final order
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for further intervention under Section of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the court held that the provision applies only when any tree, or branches, or portion of trees or fruits of a tree is likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure or any cultivation.
It observed that the tree poses absolutely no danger, and if its protective net is to be extended, the panchayat can issue necessary directions. “Let Jesus Christ shower them with blessings to follow the Holy Bible, Matthew 22:39. The petitioner and the 9th respondent should remember that only neighbours will be there when an emergency arises. Keeping the same in mind, as I said earlier, let them settle the enmity on this silly problem over a cup of tea or coffee,” the court ordered.
Although the court remarked that the matter was fit for imposing costs on both parties for wasting judicial time, it ultimately refrained from doing so, taking a lenient view. (AI-generated image)
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said the petitioner’s grievance has clearly been magnified by the personal differences and ego clashes between neighbouring families.
Share
