OTHAYOTH HAMEEDALI Vs. MARUNOLI MEETHAL ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was for injunction to protect the possession of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. The trial court decreed the suit. The first defendant went in appeal challenging the decree. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is this: The plaint schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff from the first defendant in 2012 under Ext A1 sale deed. The defendants had an eye on the property to purchase it for a song. Therefore they prevented the prospective purchasers from purchasing the property. The defendants on 27.9.2014 physically prevented the plaintiffs from entering into the suit property.

(3.) The defendants raised the following contentions: The first defendant borrowed Rs 10,00,000.00 from the first plaintiff as a loan. Besides two signed blank cheques taken from the first defendant, the first plaintiff got Ext A1 document executed in his favour by the first defendant. Although Ext A1 was executed, no sale had taken place. The plaint schedule property is still in the possession of the first defendant. The suit property is not identifiable.