KODERI VALAPPIL NABEESSA Vs. ACHERIYATHU ABDUL MAJEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that is raised in this Second Appeal has no comparison with the 'sala' involved in the lis. But, it may have to be frequently confronted in daily life. The relevant facts which ultimately led to filing of this appeal could be briefly sketched.

(2.) O.S.No. 174 of 1983 filed before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur was principally a suit for injunction. Plaintiffs alleged tortious conduct on the part of the defendant and also claimed compensation for loss sustained by them. The suit had been decreed. The defendant was restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs were also declared as entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as damages. Munsiff further directed that the building materials forcibly taken away were to be restored to the plaintiffs.

(3.) The Appellate Court (Subordinate Judge's Court), Tirur by judgment in A.S.No. 87/1987 had however held that although order of permanent prohibitory injunction was warranted, plaintiffs were not entitled to get damages from the defendant.