PULIMANNAM N S S KARAYOGAM Vs. GAYATHRIMEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.413 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chittur are the appellants. Defendant is the respondent. Appellants instituted the suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction contending that they are in possession of the property having obtained the plaint schedule property under Ext.A1 gift deed executed by Venugopala Varma Raja in 1985 and since then they have been in possession of the property. Respondent resisted the suit contending that appellants are not in possession of the property and Venugopala Varma Raja has no right, and he is a member of the Kovilakam and in any case is a co-owner and therefore appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for.

(2.) LEARNED Munsiff, on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A4 dismissed the suit holding that evidence shows that Venugopala Varma Rajahad no exclusive right in the plaint schedule property and even if under Ext.A1, appellants have derived right, respondent would be co-owner and hence a decree for injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner. Appellants challenged the judgment before District Court, Palakkad in A.S.258 of 2009. LEARNED Additional District Judge, on re- appreciation of the evidence confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal.