KOCHI: When a fighter jet crosses into another country’s airspace, it triggers warnings — and if ignored, consequences. Senior lawyers say a similar principle often plays out much closer to home — in the narrow stretch of air between neighbouring houses.
In Ernakulam district, a quarrel over tree branches crossing a property line escalated into a police case and courtroom battle — what some lawyers now refer to as an ‘airspace fight’.
The dispute dates back to January 2022 in a village where two brothers in their 50s lived on adjacent plots. The trouble began when branches of trees on the elder brother’s property allegedly extended into his younger sibling’s compound. Unhappy with this, the latter filed a complaint with authorities.
Soon after, an argument reportedly broke out between the two. The matter escalated when the younger of the two lodged a police complaint accusing the elder brother and his sons of trespass and property damage. According to the FIR and court records, he alleged that while he was at his shop conducting business, the trio entered his property, unleashed his goats, switched on a motor and wasted water, and removed five stones from the compound wall, causing damage estimated at Rs 5,000.
The case eventually came up before the judicial first class magistrate court. In its judgment, the court highlighted several inconsistencies in the complainant’s version. The alleged incident was said to have taken place at 4.30pm. The complainant admitted that his house was just 5km away from the police station, yet there was a one-day delay in filing the complaint. No convincing explanation was offered for this delay.
More importantly, the court pointed out a crucial contradiction. In his complaint, the younger brother stated that he had not witnessed the accused entering his compound or committing the offences. However, during his court examination, he claimed to have seen the elder brother and his sons trespassing and carrying out those acts.
The court found this version unreliable. It observed that his oral testimony claiming he witnessed the incident was an exaggerated account, especially since his own earlier statement made it clear he was not present at the property at the time. “The delay in submitting the first information statement (FIS) and the exaggerated version during the examination of PW1 [younger brother] made the case of the prosecution unbelievable,” the court observed.
The investigating officer also admitted during trial that the complainant had not actually seen the accused removing stones from the compound wall. Additionally, no concrete evidence was produced to prove that the wall had suffered damage.
Taking these factors into account, the court recently acquitted the elder brother and his two sons.
A lawyer familiar with the case said such disputes are becoming increasingly common. “Earlier, joint families and close neighbourhood ties resolved these matters quietly. Today, even a small tree branch crossing into another’s compound can become a prestige issue,” he said. “If it poses a safety risk, it should be trimmed. But often it’s about ego. Many such cases are reaching courts now. We sometimes call them ‘airspace fights.’”