THRESIA Vs. JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 273 of 1986 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Thodupuzha, have filed S.A. No. 579 of 1991. Appellants 1 and 2 in that second appeal have also filed S.A. No. 464 of 1991 against the dismissal of their suit filed as O.S. No. 359 of 1986. They are the revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 1502 of 1991 which is filed against the appellate courts judgment finding that there was no violation of the order of status quo passed by the Trial Court pending suit.

(2.) The controversy in all the suits relate to the enforcement of Ext. A6 agreement for formation of a road having a width of 14 feet over the northern boundary (after leaving six feet) of the defendants property. The case of the appellants is that they had cut large number of trees from their property for sale with the previous permission of the respondents to the effect that the respondents will permit them to take the timber through their property. It is their further case that after the cutting of the trees the respondents changed their attitude and insisted that unless the defendants enter into an agreement to cut a road over the northern boundary of their property towards east they will not permit the defendants to take the lorries through their property. Therefore, they were compelled to execute the agreement. According to them, the agreement is unenforceable as it was vitiated by coercion and threat. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that a road was already constructed on the northern boundary of the defendants property and when they tried to close it, O.S. No. 297 of 1986 was filed to prevent it.

(3.) All the three suits were tried together. The Trial Court by a common judgment decreed the suit filed by the appellants and dismissed the other two suits. That decision was upset by the lower appellate court.