ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY Vs. T J PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent in C.M.A. 32 of 1991 of the District Court, Alappuzha who was the counter petitioner in I. A. 1822 of 1991 in O.S. 418 of 1991 of-the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha is the revision petitioner. Respondent instituted the said suit against the revision petitioner for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from demolishing or destroying the plaint schedule building or from interfering with his peaceful use of the building. He moved I.A. 1822 of 1991 for a temporary injunction. Learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. Against the said order respondent preferred C.M.A. 32 of 1991 before the District Court. the appeal was allowed. The judgment in the said C.M.A. is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) Respondent/ plaintiff alleged that his father obtained a lease for the plaint schedule 4 cents for industrial purpose and constructed a shed wherein he started a business of Boat Engine repairing and maintenance in the year 1104. Later his father formed a partnership with the plaintiff and two of his (plaintiff) brothers. Father was the Managing Partner. On the death of his father on 1-5-1990 he became the Managing Partner of the firm. He is also the legal heir along with his two brothers. Plaintiff's father thus was the owner of the shed and after him, the plaintiff as heir and partner of the firm is in his possession and is conducting the workshop. He claimed that he is a tenant within the meaning of Section 106 of Act 1/1964 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The municipal assessment of the building stood in the name of the plaintiff's father. While so, one P. J. Thomas obtained a sale deed for the property on 9-4-1990. According to the respondent he in collusion with the revision petitioner when attempted to manipulate the municipal assessment register with a view to incorporate his name as the owner of the building, he (respondent) filed O.S. 747 of 1990 for permanent injunction and an interim injunction was ordered against the revision petitioner from transferring the ownership of the plaint schedule building and evicting him.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that when the said suit was pending, at about 2 O' clock in the night of 25-5-1991 the said P.J. Thomas and his associates set fire to the plaint schedule shed with an object of forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the premises. He preferred a complaint before the police and filed a petition for prosecuting the defendants in O.S. 747 of 1990 for violating the interim injunction. According to the plaintiff the firm destroyed the thatched roof and enclosure, therefore he made necessary repairs to the shed. According to him the said Thomas a business tycoon in Alappuzha is highly influential both politically and financially.