VENKITASUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revision Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, learned counsel for the defendant in O. S. 479/62 on the file of the court of the munsiff, Ernakulam, challenges the decree of that court directing his client to put the plaintiffs in the suit in possession of the properties.

(2.) THE suit itself was instituted by the plaintiffs under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. THE material part of S. 9 of the Specific Relief act is as follows: "section 9. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. " and it also provided in the latter part of the section that no appeal shall lie instituted under that section nor shall any review of the order be allowed. I am referring to the last aspect because that is why the defendant-petitioner has come up to this court in revision challenging the decree of the trial court passed under S. 9 of the Act.

(3.) LATER on, no doubt in Para. 6, after referring to the fact that the defendant was doing nothing towards effecting any repair, the plaintiffs stated that the various representations were made by defendant only with the ulterior object of making the plaintiffs vacate the house.