P VIJAYAMOHAN Vs. BALAKRISHNAN SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the first defendant in O.S.No.100 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, challenges the concurrent findings of the courts below allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE first respondent filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased by him from the first defendant as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 17.6.2006. Since mistakes crept in the document, Ext.A2 correction deed was executed by the first defendant on 12.1.2009. According to the plaintiff, he completed the construction of the building in the plaint schedule property and he entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding with the State Bank of India to let out the ground floor of the building to the Bank.

(3.) THE courts below took into account the execution of Exts.A1 and A2 registered documents, the letter given by the first defendant to the local authority for registering the name of the plaintiff as the owner of the property, the cancellation of the Memorandum Of Understanding entered into between the first defendant and the State Bank of India, the execution of the Memorandum Of Understanding between the plaintiff and the State Bank of India and other materials and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established prima facie case for granting the temporary injunction. THE discretion exercised by the courts below and the findings rendered by them do not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the trial court shall dispose of the suit untrammeled by any of the observations and findings made in the order and judgment.