O M JOHNSON Vs. THOMAS AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the additional fifth defendant in O.S.No.143 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kattappana. The first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 1 to 4 respectively therein. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The first respondent herein as plaintiff instituted O.S.No.143 of 2012 on 20.4.2012 in the vacation court, joining respondents 2 to 5 herein as the defendants. Ext.P1 is a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.143 of 2012 above referred to. The relief sought in O.S.No.143 of 2012 is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession thereof and from committing acts of waste or mischief therein. The plaint schedule property is described as a parcel of land, 5.75 acres in extent, situate in R.S.Nos.542/2 and 542/5 of Anakkara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District and the building therein.

(3.) The case set out by the petitioner in the plaint is that the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri.George, S/o.Thomas, Manayath House, Chellarkovil Kara, Anakkara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk, that by virtue of a lease agreement executed by him and Sri.George, the owner of the property on 2.2.2007, he came into possession of the plaint schedule property and since then he is residing in the building (VI/242) situate therein with his family. The plaint proceeds to state that on expiry of the lease period of two years, another lease deed was executed on 31.3.2009 for a period of six months on the same terms and conditions, that on 12.12.2009, a third lease deed was executed for a period of eight years and that on the strength of the lease deeds the plaintiff has improved the property, dug a pond and a water tank and cultivated it with cardamom. In paragraph 13 of the plaint it is alleged that while matters stood thus, the respondents (defendants 1 to 4) intervened and defendants 1 to 3 who represented themselves to be relatives of Mr.George, the owner and the fourth defendant, their henchman, demanded him to vacate the plaint schedule property, that the plaintiff informed them that the property is leased out to him by Mr.George and except Mr.George no one else has the right to evict him therefrom, that thereupon the defendants became furious and went back and later, on 17.4.2012, the defendants and their henchmen came to the plaint schedule property and attempted to destroy the cultivation therein. It is alleged that they also attempted to forcefully evict the plaintiff and his family but on account of the timely intervention of the plaintiff and his neighbours, it was prevented. It was on these averments that the suit was instituted for the relief aforesaid.