ITTOOP Vs. VENKITTAN EMBRANDIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-5-200 in l.A.No. 1195 of 2000 in C.M.A. No. 27/ 2000 of the Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Irinjalakuda, which was filed,against the order in I.A. No. 3535/99 in O.S. No. 1235/ 99 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Inrinjalakuda. Defendant is the revision petioner.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 1235/99 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant who is the petitioner herein. Alongwith the plaint the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 3535/99 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for an order restraining the petitioner/defendant from trespassing upon the A schedule property and from removing the movables kept therein. The respondent herein alleged that he has purchased A scheduled property and the tools and machineries including the electric connections under a sale deed dated 21 .4.1999 executed by the defendant. Therefore he gave licence to the petitioner/defendant to conduct the workshop with effect from 21.4.1999. An agreement was executed on 1.5.1999. The period of licence expired on 20.7.1999. As per the agreement the respondent/plaintiff has been paying the building tax. According to the respondent/plaintiff he had given permission to the petitioner defendant to conduct the workshop till 20.7.1999. Now the petitioner/ defendant has started saying that he was going to continue to conduct the workshop in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he has filed a petition for an order of injunction.

(3.) The revision petitioner/defendant filed a counter admitting the sale deed and contended that the possession of the plaint schedule property was not transferred to the respondent/plaintiff as per the sale deed. He would contend that the respondent/plaintiff is a money lender and since 1990 the petitioner/ defendant used to borrow money from him on the agreement to pay interest every month. It is admitted by the petitioner/defendant that he had borrowed Rs. 70.000/- from the respon dent/plaintiff agreeing to pay Rs. 35,000/ - on 31.1.1998 and Rs. 35,000/- on 28.2.1998. Since he did not pay the amount, the respondent/plaintiff demanded for the same. Then the petitioner/defendant assured him that he will pay off the amount before 20- 7-1999. Then the plaintiff wanted to execute a sale deed by way of security for the amount and accordingly a sale deed happened to be executed by him on 21.4.1999. He has also denied the allegation that he agreed to pay the licence fee. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the injunction petition.