GAURAMMAL Vs. PAZHANISWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd defendant in O.S.No.102 of 2007 of Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Mannarkkad is aggrieved by the decree for prohibitory injunction granted in that suit as confirmed by Sub Court, Ottapalam in A.S.No.149 of 2008.

(2.) APPELLANT, 1st respondent/plaintiff and respondents 3 and 4/defendants 2 and 4 are the children of the 1st defendant. The suit property originally belonged to one Narayanan as per purchase certificate No.27 of 1977 issued from the Land Tribunal, Agali (Ext.A4 is the notary attested copy of that purchase certificate). Later that property was purchased by the 1st defendant as per Ext.B1, assignment deed No.5724 of 1984. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the 1st defendant transferred that property to him as per Ext.A1, settlement deed No.5293 of 1986 dated 26.11.1986. He claimed to be in possession of the said property and produced Exts.A2 series and A5 series to show payment of revenue and Ext.A3, possession certificate dated 05.06.2007. He alleged that the appellant/3rd defendant and other defendants are attempting to trespass into the suit property and hence prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction.

(3.) THE report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was not marked in evidence. But, for the purpose of deciding identity of the suit property the trial court has referred to that report. Appellant/3rd defendant when examined as DW1 admitted in cross examination that atleast as on the date of the examination 1st respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the property. Nothing is brought on record to show that the 1st respondent took possession of the property pending the suit. On the otherhand, Exts.A2 series and A5 series and Ext.A3 revealed possession of 1st respondent in the property. According to the 1st respondent, he got possession of the suit property pursuant to Ext.A1. He also examined PW4, the attesting witness in Ext.A1 to prove due execution of that document.