LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-412

T.MANOHARAN Vs. M.BABANNA

Decided On July 19, 2022
T.Manoharan Appellant
V/S
M.Babanna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of the learned Judge who has allowed the application filed in I.A.No.15 appointing a Court Commissioner to identify the property.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff claims that he was one of the partner of respondent/defendant company and has invested huge sums out of his funds. However, on account of some irregularities, the petitioner/plaintiff decided to part with the company. The plaintiff further contended that the respondent/defendant assured that he will settle all the dues of the petitioner/plaintiff and stopped paying monthly salary to the petitioner from November 2016. It is also contended by the plaintiff that during the course of employment, the petitioner was provided with a house bearing No.115 and the respondent/defendant assured by issuing a letter that they would transfer the property bearing No.115. The present suit is filed on account of the respondent/defendant's notice dtd. 22/3/2017 calling upon the petitioner/plaintiff to handover vacant possession of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Alleging that respondent/defendant is trying to forcibly dispossess, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

(3.) The respondent/defendant, on receipt of summons, has tendered appearance and have filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. At para 2(a), the respondent/defendant has specifically contended that the alleged suit schedule property bearing No.115 is not at all in existence. On basis of fictitious number, the petitioner/plaintiff is squatting over the property bearing No.49.