YASIN @ SYED YASIN Vs. ASHABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in R.A. No.31/2004 allowing the appeal of the respondents and setting aside the judgment and decree of dismissal and granting a decree of injunction in favour of the respondents restraining the appellant from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The parties are referred as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 3, whereas, the appellant herein is defendant No.2 in the trial Court. The plaintiff claiming to be the owner in possession of Khaneshumari No.122/187 measuring East to West 52 feet and North to Sourth 64 feet with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and contended that there was an obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, instituted a suit seeking for permanent injunction. The second defendant contested the suit and contended that he is the owner in possession of Khaneshumari No.34 and 36 acquired by him under a sale deed in pursuance of an agreement and the decree of the Court and his property is within the boundaries which is said to be in possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, it was his contention that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest whatsoever and that he is absolute owner of the suit property. On the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues calling upon the plaintiff to prove her lawful possession, obstruction and the nature of reliefs to be granted in favour of the parties. Accordingly, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and in her evidence the documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The second defendant was examined as DW1 and the documents Exs.D1 to D18 were marked. The trial Court after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the first respondent preferred an appeal in RA No.31/2004 and the first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by allowing her appeal and granted a decree of injunction against the defendants. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the second defendant is in appeal before this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.