PADMANABHAN Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 201/78 is against the order of the Trial Court in I.A. No. 293/79, an application filed under Order XI R.12 CPC.

(2.) The suit was for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into two separate one-acre plots in R. S. No. 1/IA. The plaintiff's father had obtained 27 acres of land in the survey number (plaint A schedule) under a partition deed of 1942 and he was in direct possession from 1953. Out of the above 12.02 acres were to be surrendered as excess under Act I of 1964. The father was desirous of giving the remaining 14.98 acres (plaint B schedule) to his four sons, including the plaintiff, and land revenue was accordingly being paid in the sons' names. But the father died in 1977 and the property devolved on his widow and six children. The defendants had requested the father during his life time to give them some part of land instead of surrendering the same as excess, but that request had been turned down. They were ever thereafter trying to get at the land, and on 15-10-78 when the plaintiff went to the property with labourers, the defendants unsuccessfully obstructed. They however threatened that renewed efforts would be made to trespass upon the land. The defendants had therefore to be restrained from entering on the two acres of land described in the C schedule, forming part of the B schedule.

(3.) Apart from denying the plaint allegations the defendants, in their written statement, contended that the C schedule property could not be identified at all by the descriptions therein, and it was therefore proper that the plaintiff be directed to take out a commission for the purpose. After such identification, the defendants would file an additional written statement. The plaintiffs' father had put them in possession of the two acres in 1958 and it was the defendants who were paying revenue thereafter. They had no need to trespass on two acres, and they had never attempted to do so.