NADAKKAL CHANDRAN Vs. MANDEYAN YESHODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S.No.562 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff. Kannur sued the respondents, his wife and son for a decree for prohibitory injunction claiming that he is in possession of the shoproom described in the plaint schedule and that respondents are attempting to trespass into the said shoproom. He claimed that he is engaged in stationary business in the said shoproom. He produced Exts.A1 and A2, profession'tax receipt dated 27.12.1995 and building tax receipt dated 09.02.2001 in support of his claim of possession.

(2.) 2nd respondent did not contest the suit. 1st respondent contended that appellant has no title or possession of the shoproom. She claimed that appellant had executed an agreement for sale of the shoproom in favour of one Balakrishnan who filed O.S.No.129 of 1998 and obtained a decree for specific performance of the said agreement for sale. As per that decree, the court executed sale deed in favour of the said Balakrishnan concerning the shoproom and the land where it is situated. The said Balakrishnan filed E.PNo.392 of 1999 and got delivery of possession on 27.01.2001. Ext.B1 is the copy of delivery report dated 29.01.2001. From the said Balakrishnan 1st respondent purchased the shoproom and the land as per Ext.B2, assignment deed No.510 of 2001 dated 24.02.2001. On 03.09.2001 appellant trespassed into the said shoproom with a mala fide intention to start business in the said room. 1st respondent preferred a complaint to the Police. 1st respondent put a new lock to the shoproom. It is thereafter that appellant filed the suit for injunction with an application for temporary injunction against the respondents. She produced Ext.B3, receipt dated 28.06.2001 for payment of land revenue and Ext.B4, receipt dated 14.03.2001 for payment of building tax.

(3.) Trial court on a consideration of the evidence concluded that appellant has no right over the building and that at any rate, he has no possession of the building after 27.01.2001 (on which day as revealed by Ext.Bl, the shoproom was delivered to Balakrishnan by the Amin appointed by the executing court in E.P.No.392 of 1999). The suit ended in a dismissal. Appellant challenged that judgment and decree in the Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S.No.136 of 2008. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal.