Kochi

A simple coconut tree became the centre of an unusual legal battle in the Kerala High Court, prompting a judge to remark that if the tree "had the capacity to laugh", it would probably have laughed at the neighbours fighting over it.

Dismissing a writ petition filed over fears that the tree posed a danger, Justice P V Kunhikrishnan used colourful language to urge the two neighbours to put aside their differences and resolve the matter over "a shared cup of tea or coffee".

"The petitioner and the 9th respondent are fighting each other because of this coconut tree. If a coconut tree has the capacity to laugh, the coconut tree might have laughed towards these fighting neighbours," the judge observed.

The case involved two neighbouring property owners in Karakulam village in Thiruvananthapuram district.

In the order dated June 18, Justice Kunhikrishnan described the litigation as "a classic example of unnecessary litigation arising out of a trivial neighbourhood dispute".

He added that what "should have been resolved over a shared cup of tea or coffee has instead ripened into a full-blown litigation".

"The law cannot substitute basic neighbourly goodwill," the judgment said, while reminding the parties that neighbours should live with "mutual trust and co-operation".

In an unusual touch, the judge quoted Matthew 22:39 from the Bible: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

He urged both parties to read the verse and "sit together over coffee or tea to resolve the dispute".

The court found that there was "absolutely no danger" from the coconut tree in light of the Panchayat's findings, the Ombudsman’s directions and the Advocate Commissioner's report.

It also held that there was no need to invoke powers under Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which applies when a tree is likely to fall and endanger people or property.

Although the court said it was a fit case to impose costs on both parties for wasting judicial time, it ultimately chose not to do so.

"Let Jesus Christ shower them with blessings to follow the Holy Bible, Matthew 22:39," the judge said in the concluding part of the judgment, adding that "only neighbours will be there when an emergency arises".

The dispute had already travelled through the local panchayat, revenue authorities and the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions.

The High Court even appointed an Advocate Commissioner, for whom the petitioner paid Rs 1 lakh as remuneration, to inspect the site.

The Commissioner found that the coconut tree was well-rooted and did not pose any imminent danger of falling.

It was already tied with an iron wire to make it lean towards its owner's property, while a protective net had been installed to prevent coconuts from falling into the petitioner's compound.

The report suggested that extending the net and carrying out periodic maintenance would effectively address any safety concerns.

READ MORE: Bhiwandi mosque opened doors to NEET parents, showed way to brotherhood

Despite this, the petitioner remained dissatisfied and even produced videos before the court to support his case.