M S PAULOSE Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order in I.A. 1201 of 1995 in O.S. 150 of 1980 of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property and interfering with his enjoyment and possession. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. A second appeal was taken to this court and this court reversed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the judgment as follows:

(2.) The lower court after hearing both parties held that the judgment of the Supreme Court clearly shows that both the parties should enjoy the property in equal moiety.Hence, it cannot be said that that does not create a right on the parties. The court below accepted the LA. and by the impugned order held that the petition was maintainable. It is against the above order that the present revision is filed.

(3.) Senior counsel Mr. S. V. S. Iyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit. He filed the suit only for injunction and not for partition. A suit for injunction cannot be converted into a suit for partition. The observation of the Supreme Court if at all creates only a right on the respondents to file a suit for partition. In the present suit, an application cannot be filed for a final decree.