Man spent years fighting neighbour over coconut tree, Kerala high court tells him to settle it over tea

NEW DELHI: A man who dragged his neighbour's coconut tree through the panchayat, the revenue department, the local government ombudsman, and finally the Kerala high court has been told by the court to put down his legal weapons, sit down with his neighbour, and resolve the matter over a cup of tea or coffee.What was the issueGopinath R, a resident of Karakulam village in Thiruvananthapuram, owns a small plot of land next to his neighbour Renjith S. A coconut tree stands on Renjith's property, close to the boundary wall separating the two houses. Gopinath claimed the tree was leaning towards his property, that falling coconuts were damaging his two cars parked on the eastern side of his land, and that the tree posed a danger to his family.He first took the matter to the panchayat in July 2023. Getting no satisfactory response, he went to the revenue authorities, filed an RTI application, and then approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.The panchayat's own proceedings dated September 18, 2024 noted that there was no danger from the tree and suggested tying it with an iron support towards Renjith's side — a step that was eventually taken.

The ombudsman also disposed of the case, directing the panchayat to widen the protective net already placed around the tree.Still unsatisfied, Gopinath filed a writ petition before the Kerala high court in 2025, paying Rs 1 lakh as remuneration for a court-appointed advocate commissioner to inspect the site and submit a report.The commissioner's report found that the coconut tree was well-rooted, posed no imminent danger of falling, was already tied with an iron support that had caused it to lean away from Gopinath's property, and that widening the existing protective net and cleaning the tree periodically would be sufficient to address the concern.Gopinath was not satisfied with this report either and filed an objection with video evidence. The video showed a coconut palm accidentally falling during a cleaning exercise and the tree climber retrieving it from the boundary wall without setting foot on Gopinath's land.The court noted dryly that the climber's care in avoiding the petitioner's property only illustrated the depth of the enmity between the two households.What the court saidJustice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed the petition, finding no merit in Gopinath's claims and no basis for the court's intervention.The judge was direct about what he saw. "The present case is a classic example of unnecessary litigation arising out of a trivial neighbourhood dispute that has unfortunately travelled from the local authority, the revenue authority, the ombudsman, and to this court," he observed.

"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 court found that the panchayat had already acted on the ombudsman's directions, the tree posed no danger, and there was nothing more for any authority to do. It held that Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act — under which Gopinath wanted action taken — was applicable only if a tree or its branches were actually likely to fall and endanger a person or structure, which was not the case here."The court of law exists to resolve genuine disputes where rights are truly threatened, not to validate exaggerated apprehensions born out of strained relationships," it said.The judge noted that the case deserved costs to be imposed on both sides for wasting judicial time but chose to take a lenient view and let them off."The neighbours are expected to live in mutual trust and co-operation, especially when they must share boundaries, roads, and resources in a close-knit community. The law cannot substitute basic neighbourly goodwill," the court said, and disposed of the writ petition.