The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea over a coconut tree on a neighbour’s land, calling it a classic case of unnecessary litigation driven by ego clashes between neighbours. Remarking that the tree itself might laugh at the dispute, the Court said its quiet existence had unnecessarily become the subject of valuable judicial time.
A coconut tree in Kerala became the unlikely centre of a legal dispute, culminating in sharp but humorous remarks from the Kerala High Court.
While dismissing a writ petition that claimed the tree was dangerous, Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that if the coconut tree had the capacity to laugh, it would likely have laughed at the neighbours for quarrelling over something so minor.
Justice Kunhikrishnan noted that the dispute had escalated between the petitioner and his 9th respondent neighbour because of the coconut tree. He remarked that a tree could not be blamed for the conflict at least, in his words, not if it possessed the ability to laugh.
In his order dated June 18, the judge described the case as “a classic example of unnecessary litigation arising out of a trivial neighbourhood dispute”.
He further said that what should have been resolved over a shared cup of tea or coffee has instead ripened into a full-blown litigation.
Reiterating the importance of neighbourly goodwill, the court said,
“The law cannot substitute basic neighbourly goodwill,”
The Court reminded the parties that neighbours must live with mutual trust and co-operation.
The judge also quoted from the Bible, Matthew 22:39: He urged the parties to read the verse and settle the matter amicably over coffee or tea.
“Love your neighbour as yourself.”
The court found no real danger from the coconut tree, relying on findings by the Panchayat, directions from the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, and a report submitted by an Advocate Commissioner.
It also ruled that it was not a case to apply Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which is meant for situations where a tree is likely to fall and endanger people or property.
Although the High Court indicated that it was appropriate to impose costs on both sides for wasting judicial time, it refrained from doing so.
In the concluding portion of the judgment, the judge said,
“Let Jesus Christ shower them with blessings to follow the Holy Bible, Matthew 22:39,”
He added,
“Only neighbours will be there when an emergency arises”.
The dispute had already been taken through multiple local fora, including the panchayat, revenue authorities, and the Ombudsman. The High Court also appointed an Advocate Commissioner, whose inspection required a payment of Rs 1 lakh by the petitioner.
After inspecting the site, the Commissioner concluded that the tree was firmly rooted and did not pose any imminent threat. The tree was already tied with an iron wire to lean towards the neighbour’s property, and a protective net had been installed to ensure coconuts would not fall into the petitioner’s compound.
The report suggested that expanding the net and carrying out regular maintenance would address any safety concerns. Despite this, the petitioner remained unconvinced and even submitted videos to support his claims.