ABDUL SALAM Vs. FASALUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the respondents in I.A.No.1358/2011. They are the plaintiffs in the suit. Their case in brief is as follows: Plaint A schedule property belongs to the Ist plaintiff as per sale deed No.656/99 and B schedule properties jointly belong to Ist plaintiff and his wife, the 2nd plaintiff as per sale deed No.4740/95. After the above sale deeds they are in possession. The Ist defendant is the brother of the wife of the elder brother of the Ist plaintiff. He is running a business. The first plaintiff is working in the institution of the Ist defendant for three years. While so, the Ist plaintiff decided to come on leave. He wanted the Ist defendant to pay his salary arrears. The Ist defendant manipulated a story that the Ist plaintiff had misappropriated huge funds and thereafter by threat, coercion and intimidation the Ist defendant had obtained his signatures and thumb impressions. Later the plaintiffs understood that it was a power of attorney executed by the Ist plaintiff. There is allegation that it is by influencing the Indian Embassy officials that the Ist defendant had fabricated the power of attorney. Plaintiffs filed suit for injunction against respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and committing any waste therein. The respondent also filed I.A No.1358/2011 against the plaintiffs wherein the case was that the sale deed was executed on the strength of the power of attorney and that the appellants herein are trying to trespass into the property and commit waste. The said I.A was allowed. By a common order the application filed by the appellants as I.A.120/2011 was also allowed restraining the respondents from taking income from the plaint schedule property and committing waste.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We do not think that the appellants have made out any case for interfering with the impugned order before us, viz., the order passed in I.A.1358/2011. We must also remind ourselves that when the trial court exercises discretion this Court will be slow to interfere in the matter of grant or refusal of equitable relief. We note that the trial court has inter alia held that the appellants could not produce any documentary evidence to show that they have got possession of the property and also found that the matter must await trial and there is a sale deed. No doubt, the court found that there is no suspicion about the power of attorney.