ANANTHA PAI Vs. GOPALA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of these three writ petitions, which are closely connected, but arising from two suits, can be summed up thus: Common Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 32419 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 32423 of 2008 has filed a suit as O.S. No. 1841 of 2007 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda for a declaration of his title and injunction over an immovable property having an extent of two acres. Property involved was admittedly purchased in the name of the Defendant, but, major portion of the sale consideration was alleged to have been paid by the Plaintiff. He has also advanced a case that he has prescribed title over the property by adverse possession as having continued possession of the property ever since the sale deed denying title of the Defendant, the registered holder of that property. With the suit, the Plaintiff had moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the Defendant from creating any document or interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the property. Pending consideration of that application, the Defendant admittedly sold the property to another, the Respondent in the W.P. (C) No. 32423 of 2008. The above said Respondent, after such transfer, instituted another suit as O.S.No.399 of 2008 before the very same court seeking a decree of injunction against the Defendant, the Plaintiff in the previous suit (O.S. No. 1841 of 2007).

(2.) Plaintiff and Defendant in O.S. No. 1841 of 2007 are hereinafter referred to as such, and the Plaintiff in the subsequent suit, O.S. No. 399 of 2008 as the purchaser, for the sake of convenience. Documents produced with the two writ petitions, W.P. (C) No. 32419 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 32423 of 2008 are common and for the sake of convenience, reference is made to the documents as marked in W.P. (C) No. 32419 of 2008.

(3.) The application for interim injunction moved by the Plaintiff, after hearing both sides, was allowed by the learned Munsiff restraining the Defendant from creating any document in respect of the property and from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the property till the disposal of the suit. Ext. P-1 is the copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 1841 of 2007 and Ext. P-2 is the copy of the order of injunction passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Pursuant to transfer of the property in favour of the purchaser, pending consideration of the application for interim injunction by the court, the subsequent suit, O.S. No. 399 of 2008 was filed by the purchaser, in which, he claimed an interim injunction against the Defendant (the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1841 of 2007). That application for interim injunction was also allowed by the learned Munsiff. Ext. P-3 is the copy of the plaint Ext. P-4 is the copy of the application for injunction and Ext. P-5 copy of the objections and Ext. P-6 copy of the order granting interim injunction in the above suit, namely O.S. No. 399 of 2008. As against Ext. P-2 order, the Defendant in O.S. No. 1841 of 2007 filed an appeal as C.M.A. No. 21 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. As against Ext. P-6 order, the Defendant in O.S.No.399 of 2008 (Plaintiff in the other suit O.S. No. 1841 of 2007) filed another appeal as C.M.A. No. 25 of 2008 before the very same court. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing the appeals separately passed Exts.P-7 and P-8 judgments. By Ext. P-7 judgment, C.M.A. No. 21 of 2008 was allowed vacating Ext. P-2 order of injunction passed in favour of the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1841 of 2007. By Ext. P-8 judgment, C.M.A. No. 25 of 2008 was dismissed confirming Ext. P-6 order of injunction passed in favour of the purchaser/Plaintiff in O.S. No. 399 of 2008. Against Exts. P-7 and P-8 judgments, the writ petitions W.P. (C) No. 32419 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 32423 of 2008 respectively, are filed by the aggrieved party, Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1841 of 2007, who is also the Defendant in O.S. No. 399 of 2008.