The Kerala High Court recently closed a man's plea for action against a coconut tree standing on his neighbour's land, while terming the case a classic example of unnecessary litigation fuelled by ego clashes [Gopinath R v Ombudsman & ors]..Justice PV Kunhikrishnan added that if the coconut tree at the centre of the controversy had the ability to laugh, then it would have laughed at the two warring neighbours."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. Two grown neighbours, unable to bend their egos as easily as a coconut tree bends to the wind, is the situation," the judge observed..If a coconut tree has the capacity to laugh, it might have laughed (at) these fighting neighbours. If it could think, it might wonder how its quiet existence became the subject of wasting unnecessary judicial timeKerala High Court.The Court noted that a dispute that could have been resolved over a cup of tea or coffee has now escalated into litigation before multiple authorities and ultimately the High Court."Now, these two neighbours, who are grown-up people, dragged this Court to a quarrel over a harmless palm... What should have been resolved over a shared cup of tea or coffee has instead ripened into a full-blown litigation, as if every swaying frond were a legal threat and every coconut an impending exhibit. If the tree itself could think, as I mentioned earlier, it might well wonder how its quiet existence has become the subject of wasting unnecessary judicial time of this court," the Court lamented..The Court further observed that costs could have been imposed on the parties for wasting valuable judicial time. However, it ultimately took a lenient view and refrained from doing so and suggested that the parties settle their differences out of court."Let Jesus Christ shower them with blessings to follow the Holy Bible, Matthew 22:39 (You shall love your neighbour as yourself). 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 said..The plea was filed by a Thiruvananthapuram resident who alleged that a coconut tree on his neighbour's property, which was located close to the common boundary, posed a danger to his family and property. He stated that coconuts and dry leaves were falling into his property, causing damage to the vehicles parked in his compound.Complaints were submitted before the Panchayat, Revenue Authorities and the Ombudsman seeking removal of the tree.Records before the High Court showed that the Panchayat had already directed that the tree should be tied towards the neighbour's property and that protective nets should be installed to prevent coconuts from falling into the petitioner's premises.On the High Court's directions, an inspection was carried out to see whether the directions were complied. It was reported that the coconut tree was well rooted and did not pose any imminent danger of falling.The report added that the protective measures, such as tying up the tree with an iron cable and a protective net were effective. Despite this, the petitioner continued to object and produced a video footage to support his claim that dangers persisted.The Court, however, found that the video only reflected the hostility between the neighbours rather than any real threat posed by the tree. The Court went on to observe that even if there was a genuine grievance at some point, the matter had now been magnified by strained personal relations. Courts of law are meant to resolve genuine disputes, not validated exaggerated apprehensions, it held."The law cannot substitute basic neighbourly goodwill," the Court added, before closing the petition. .Advocate H Praveen appeared for the petitioner.The petitioner's neighbour was represented by advocates GP Shinod, Sreehari Indukaladharan, Govind Padmanaabhan, Ajit G Anjarlekar, Atul Mathews and Gayathri SB.Senior government pleader Kabeer S appeared for the State.Advocate Sachin George Aramban assisted the Court as a commissioner who inspected the property housing the coconut tree. .[Read Judgment]
