Kerala High Court Asks Neighbours Fighting Over Coconut Tree To Settle Dispute 'Over A Cup Of Tea'

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, deciding a writ petition, remarked that if the coconut tree at the centre of the dispute “had the capacity to laugh,” it might have laughed at the neighbours' quarrel.

“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 Court said on a lighter note.

It noted that what could have been resolved “over a shared cup of tea or coffee” had instead evolved into full-fledged litigation.

The petitioner and the ninth respondent own adjoining residential properties in Karakulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram district. The dispute concerned a coconut tree located on the ninth respondent's property. The petitioner alleged that the tree posed a danger to his family and property and complained to the Panchayat, revenue authorities, and eventually the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions.

According to the petitioner, coconuts falling from the tree caused damage risks to vehicles parked on his property. The Panchayat, however, had concluded that the tree did not pose a danger and suggested preventive measures, including tying the tree with an iron support and installing protective netting.

To ascertain the factual position, the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner after the petitioner agreed to bear remuneration of ₹1 lakh.

The Commissioner reported that the coconut tree was well-rooted and did not present any imminent danger of falling. The report further noted that the tree had already been secured with an iron support causing it to lean slightly away from the petitioner's property, and that a protective net had been installed around it. Periodic maintenance and extension of the net were considered sufficient safeguards.

The Commissioner concluded that the dispute could be effectively resolved through routine maintenance of the tree and widening of the protective net.

The Court thus relied on the Panchayat's proceedings, the Ombudsman's directions, and the Advocate Commissioner's report, and found that there is no basis to conclude that the coconut tree posed any real danger. The Court held that the petitioner's concerns had been adequately addressed by the authorities and that there was no need to invoke powers under Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which applies when a tree is likely to fall and endanger persons or property.

Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that the case had travelled through multiple forums, including local authorities, revenue officials, the Ombudsman, and finally the High Court, despite involving a minor neighbourhood dispute.

The Court described the litigation as an example of judicial time being consumed by matters driven more by personal differences and ego clashes than by genuine legal grievances.

"At a time when the courts are overburdened with serious civil, criminal, and other matters, judicial time is wasted in this manner by arguing this case. The grievance of the petitioner, even if bona fide at some stage, has clearly been magnified by the personal differences and ego clashes between neighbouring families. The court of law exists to resolve genuine disputes where rights are truly threatened, not to validate exaggerated apprehensions born out of strained relationships." Court noted. 

The Court emphasized that the law cannot replace “basic neighbourly goodwill” and cited Matthew 22:39 from the Bible “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

The Court encouraged the parties to resolve their differences amicably and suggested they sit together over tea or coffee rather than continue litigating.

Although the Court remarked that the case was one in which costs could have been imposed for wasting judicial time, it refrained from doing so, taking what it described as a lenient view.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with the Court directing that the Panchayat continue monitoring the situation and ensure compliance with the Ombudsman's earlier directions regarding maintenance of the tree and protective measures.

Case Title: Gopinath R v Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 24843/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 340

Counsel for Petitioner: H. Praveen

Counsel for Respondent: G.P Shinod, Sreehari Indukaladharan, Govind Padmanabhan, Ajit F Anjarlekar, Atul Mathews, Gayathri S.B, Kabeer S (Sr.GP)