ANU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.368 of 2015 of the Court of the Munsiff, Alappuzha (Trial Court) and the appellant in A.S No.9/2020 of the Court of the District Judge, Alappuzha (lower Appellate Court). The respondents in the appeal were the defendants in the suit and respondents in the first appeal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the original suit.

(2.) The plaintiff had sought a decree of perpectual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from initiating revenue recovery proceediings against the plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiff.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in a nutshell, is that he had purchased the plaint schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same after effecting mutation. The plaintiff has been conducting a hotel named "Alakapuri" and the movables in the building belong to him. The 2nd defendant had issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to show case why the mutation in respect of the plaint schedule property should not be cancelled. Even though the plaintiff had filed a written objection to the notice stating that he was not liable to pay the alleged dues under the notice, the 2nd defendant threatened to take coercive proceedings against him. Hence the suit.