MUKKATTIL KASIM Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Palakkad in O.S. No.1 of 2003, confirmed by the District Court, Palakkad in A.S. No.280 of 2008.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2-plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction and for damages. According to the respondents, the suit property belongs to the 1st respondent and as the 1st respondent was abroad he had executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant. On the strength of the power of attorney the appellant was looking after the suit property. The power of attorney was cancelled on 17.06.2002. While so, the appellant claimed Rs.3,30,000.00 and remuneration at the rate of Rs.1,000.00 per month for his service. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.159 of 2002 against the appellant and obtained a decree for accounting. Exhibit A4 is the copy of judgment in that case (I am told that an appeal filed by the appellant is pending). It is the further case of respondents 1 and 2 that on 16.09.2002, the appellant trespassed into the plaint B schedule building and put an additional lock for it. Hence the suit for reliefs first above stated, including a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the appellant remove the additional lock. There is also a claim for damages at the rate of Rs.250.00 per day from 16.09.2002.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent-2nd defendant did not challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court. Instead, challenge was at the instance of the appellant. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal.