JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiffs in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction are the appellants. As per the plaint allegations, they have residential plots in a residential colony by the name of Ayodhya Nagar, which was formed 25 years back and now consists of 40 residential plots. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 10 cents is inside the said Ayodhya Nagar, which is numbered as Plot No.19, and it is earmarked for park as per the Lay Out Plan approved by the Palakkad Muncipality. It was one Padmanabhan who developed the properties and obtained necessary approval for Lay Out Plan and as per the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 10% of the total area shall be kept for recreational purposes. The cause of action for the suit is that on 14.03.2010, the first defendant attempted to make construction in Plot No. 19, which was earmarked for the park in the residential colony. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant and her men from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule property and carrying out any construction activities therein. 2. The Secretary Palakkad Municipality was also impleaded as the 2 nd defendant in the suit. The 2 nd defendant/Municipality remained ex parte. 3. The first defendant opposed the suit prayers by fling Written Statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaint schedule property is an exclusive ownership that is the possession of the first defendant The plaint schedule property is purchased from the legal heirs of Subramaniam, as per Ext.B1 of the year 1995. The Layout Plan developed and got approved by Padmanabhan is not binding on the said Subramanian or the first defendant. The plaint schedule property is an enclosed house plot with compound wall and gate put up in the year 1995. 4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the Layout Plan for the residential colony and that the layout plan obtained by Padmanabhan, if any, is not binding on the first defendant, as the first defendant purchased the property from Subramaniam. 5. Though the plaintiffs filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 6. I heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. 5. Though the plaintiffs filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 6. I heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, and Sri.T.R.Harikumar the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the original first defendant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Layout Plan is not available in the records of the municipality. That could not be treated as a permission for the owners of the plot to violate the Layout plan. Though a Writ Petition was filed before this Court in this regard and Ext.A3 interim order was passed, ultimately the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Municipality to make necessary enquiry into the matter, but nothing fruitful was happened pursuant to the said direction. It is clear from Ext.A3 Report of the Regional Joint Director Urban Affairs dated 17.08.2010 that Plot No. 19 is earmarked for the park as per the Layout Plan. When the Municipality permits the development of a housing colony as per a Layout Plan, the owners of the plot are bound to develop the land in accordance with the Layout Plan issued and approved by the Municipality. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that the Layout Plan is not available with the Municipality as of now. Pursuant to the directions in the Writ Petition, the Municipality made necessary enquiry and concluded the matter. 9. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 contended that the first defendant purchased the property in the year 1995. He purchased the property from one Subramanyam. Even as per the plaintiff in the plaint, the Layout Plan is obtained by one Padmanabhan. The layout plan obtained by Padmanabhan could not bind Subramanyam, who is the predecessor of the 1 st defendant. On the date of purchase of the property in the year 1995 itself, the plot was enclosed with a compound wall fixing a gate. The suit is filed in the year 2010, raising unsustainable grounds. 10.I have considered the rival contentions. 11. On the date of purchase of the property in the year 1995 itself, the plot was enclosed with a compound wall fixing a gate. The suit is filed in the year 2010, raising unsustainable grounds. 10.I have considered the rival contentions. 11. It is seen that even as per the allegation in the plaint, the residential colony by name Ayodhya Nagar consists of 40 residential plots. According to the plaintiff, Plot No.19 is earmarked for a park. The learned counsel for the appellant made available a photocopy of the Layout Plan citing the inability of the plaintiff to get an authenticated copy of the same and highlighting the undue advantage taken by the 1 st defendant on account of the same. The said plan would indicate that the Lay out Plan consist of only 19 Plots, and it is seen obtained by Padmanabhan as claimed in the plaint. If the Lay out Plan consists of only 19 plots, it is not clear as to how 40 residential plots were there in the residential colony. Admittedly the colony was formed 25 years back. The plaintiffs are owners of Plot Nos.16 & 38 in the said residential colony as seen from their addresses. That itself would indicate that the 2 nd plaintiff has obtained a Plot, which is not included in the Layout Plan. It is not clear whether Subramanian’s property is included in the Layout Plan or not. Even if it is included it is not clear as to how the Layout Plan obtained by Padmanabhan will bind Subramanian and his properties. Admittedly, Padmnabhaan and Subramanian partitioned their properties in the year 1975. Even assuming that the plaintiffs as well as the 1 st defendant obtained Plots in the very same residential colony, it is in evidence that the 1 st defendant obtained the plaint schedule property in the year 1995. He has enclosed his house plot by constructing compound wall and gate in the year 1995 itself as pleaded by him. The plaintiff filed the suit only in the year 2010. The suit was only for a simple injunction restraining the 1 st defendant from making construction in Plot No.19. If the plaintiffs had any grievance with respect to the conversion of Plot No.19 into a residential plot, they should have filed suit immediately after they obtained the plots in the residential colony by including necessary declaratory reliefs. The suit was only for a simple injunction restraining the 1 st defendant from making construction in Plot No.19. If the plaintiffs had any grievance with respect to the conversion of Plot No.19 into a residential plot, they should have filed suit immediately after they obtained the plots in the residential colony by including necessary declaratory reliefs. It is not disclosed as to when they obtained residential plots in the colony. Their title deeds are not produced before the Court to prove their interest in the housing colony. It is clear from the pleadings and evidence that the Ayodhya Nagar residential colony and the neighboring residential colonies were formed obtaining properties from several owners. It is not clear whether the Layout Plan is intended for Ayodhya Nagar alone or other neighboring colonies also. The Layout Plan is obtained by only one of the owner. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that, being the eldest member in the family, Padmanabhan obtained the Layout Plan including the properties of all the family members. For this also, there is no evidence. There is nothing to show that Subramaniam gave consent to Padmanabhan for obtaining a Layout Plan for his property also. Admittedly, as revealed from Ext.B1, the 1 st defendant obtained Plot No.19 from the legal heirs of Subramaniam. Even assuming that there is a Layout plan with respect to the residential colony obtained by Padmanabhan, it will not be binding on the property of Subramaniam and his successors. As on the date of the suit, the property was remaining as a house plot. The long delay in bringing the suit also is not explained by the plaintiffs. 12.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground or reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 13. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.