OUSEPH PAILY Vs. DEVAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O. S.321 of 1968, in the court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor is the revision petitioner. The suit was for a permanent prohibitory injunction and damages, against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the suit. He claimed that he was in possession of the property as a tenant since 1122 ME Ext. A1 varamcheet, relied on by the plaintiff to sustain the prayer for injunction, according to the petitioner, was executed by her and her husband with a view to enable them to get a favourable decree in OS 245/61, Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. The Second Appeal therefrom was allowed and the case was remanded. After remand, the Trial Court again dismissed the suit. But on appeal (AS 5/77), the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decreed the suit as prayed for. The Second Appeal taken therefrom by the defendant petitioner, it is reported, has been dismissed.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit the Receiver appointed by the Trial Court, was in possession of the property. The Receiver however handed over possession of the property to the petitioner under orders of the Trial Court, which in the meantime had dismissed the suit.

(3.) On the suit being decreed by the Appellate Court, the first respondent filed IA 388/85 in the Trial Court under S.151 CPC praying that she be restored to the property,' with mesne profits. The petitioner herein opposed the application. He inter alia contended that the prayer in the application cannot be granted especially when there is no decree for recovery of possession of the disputed property.