LAILA PARTHAPAN Vs. P.N. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the District Court, Ernakulam in A.S. No.12 of 2009 reversing the judgment and decree of Muniff's Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No.369 of 2007. Respondent-plaintiff, claiming to be the owner in possession of the plaint A and C schedules sued for a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The plaint B schedule is two shutter space room which the respondent-plaintiff had assigned as per Exts.A2 and A3 and which in turn was purchased by the 1st appellant by a later assignment deed. The 1st appellant is engaged in business in the plaint B schedule which is being managed by the 3rd appellant. While so the respondent filed the suit alleging that the appellants have put up certain constructions in the plaint C schedule, the courtyard in front of the plaint B schedule and the rest of the building in the plaint A schedule so as to cause inconvenience to the respondent and occupants of the rest of the building.

(2.) THE appellants resisted the suit on various grounds including that appellants 2 to 4 are unnecessary parties and hence the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action, that respondent has no right to file the suit and that the 1st appellant has 2/12 undivided share over the plaint C schedule. According to the learned counsel the building was constructed originally as a residential building, later converted into a commercial building and it is necessary that the plaint C schedule is left as open space in front of the building.