TREESA LAZER Vs. VINU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.1641 of 2014 of the I Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram are challenging the concurrent findings of the court below in I.A.7055 of 2014 confirmed in C.M.A.97 of 2014 of the Additional District Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the respondent herein filed O.S.1641 of 2014 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for injunction restraining the petitioners from trespassing into the plaint schedule property causing interference to his peaceful possession. According to the plaintiff in that Suit, he obtained the property as per Sale Deed No.882 of 2014 dated 24.2.2014 along with her husband Golbert Gabriel and they were in possession of the property and the property is being looked by her mother Smt.Baby. The property originally belonged to one Jerom Peter as per Gift Deed No.1997/1988 dated 30.8.1988 and he accepted the Gift and on his death it devolved on his wife and four children, who executed the above said Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs in that Suit. The first defendant is the younger sister of Smt. Mable Jerom and the second defendant is her husband. They have no right over the plaint schedule property. They filed P.L.No.3044/2014 on 29.5.2014 against their assignor Smt.Mable Jerom. She filed objection statement before the District Legal Services authority denying the claim of the first defendant. Since the matter could not be considered by the Legal Services Authority, the second defendant, with the help of others, is trying to trespass into the property and also filed unnecessary complaints before the Thumpa police station. So, that prompted the respondent to file the Suit. Along with the Suit, they filed Ext.P1 I.A.7055 of 2014 for interim injunction restraining the respondents in that application who are the petitioners herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and causing obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment of the property. The petitioners filed Ext.P2 objection to the same stating that neither the plaintff nor her predecessor obtained possession of the property. The Gift Deed was not acted upon and they are in possession of the property and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to get any right and they prayed for dismissal of the application. According to them, the first defendant and one Mable Jerom are sisters born to late Benchamin Fernandez and Jespin Fernandes. The plaint schedule property is originally belonged to Benchamin Fernandez, the father of the first defendant and the said Mable Jerom. The first defendant along with her family was residing with her parents in the house for the last 30 years. While so, the husband of the said Mable Jerom and her husband Jerome obtained a Gift Deed No.1997/1998 from Benchamin Fernandez by coercion and undue influence and he had no intention to gift the property to them. In fact, he intended to give the property to the first defendant. It was at that time that the above said Gift Deed was obtained. When he realized the mischief committed by Mable Jerome and her husband 19 years back when he was bedridden in the presence of all his seven children including Mable Jerome and her husband, he had effected a settlement on 5.5.1995 and expressed his desire to give the property to the first defendant which was agreed by Jerome, but unfortunately he died. So the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any right over the property. They also filed O.S.1854 of 2014 before the same Court for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and that is pending. So they prayed for the dismissal of the application.

(3.) After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate by Ext.P3 order, allowed the application and granted interim injunction which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P4 Appeal as C.M.A.97 of 2014 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was made over to Additional District Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram for disposal and the learned Additional District Judge by Ext.P5 order confirmed the order of injunction passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.