POOVAPPULLI GOVINDAN NAIR Vs. MADATHIL KALAM HARIJAN KANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court, refusing the revision petitioner's application for issue of an interim injunction. The suit filed by him, O. S. 4 of 1970 was one for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, from trespassing on the property. The Respondents claimed tenancy rights. The Revision petitioner made an earlier application I. A. 17 of 1970 for an interim injunction. As the question of tenancy was pleaded by the Respondents, the I. A. was referred to the Land Tribunal for decision in accordance with the provisions of S.125, Clause (3) of the Land Reforms Act. The matter is still pending before the Land Tribunal. While so, the present petitioner made another application, out of which this revision arises, for an interim injunction against the Respondents. The Trial Court granted the injunction. But on appeal, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and vacated the interim injunction.

(2.) Two reasons have been given by the lower appellate court. First, that a second application for injunction was not maintainable during the pendency of the first, and second, that sub-s.(7) of S.125 of the Land Reforms Act was a bar to the granting of an interim injunction.

(3.) We are not quite satisfied with the first of the reasons given by the lower appellate court. But it is unnecessary to go into this, as the order can be sustained on the second ground. S.125, Clause (7) of the Land Reforms Act reads: