LAKSHMI Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A defeated plaintiff is the appellant. Though suit had been earlier decreed, on appeal by defendants 1 to 6 and another one by the 8th defendant, the decree was reversed. Therefore, this Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit was one for injunction. The plaintiff attempted to construct a compound wall surrounding the plaint schedule property. For that purpose, measurement was taken with the assistance of the Surveyor who issued notice to the defendants. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, threatened and trespassed. It was at that stage the suit was instituted for injunction.

(3.) After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found that Ext. A1 document of the year 1950 was sufficient to prove that the plaintiff had right over the plaint schedule properties. The Trial Court also found that Ext. A2, a judgment in O.S.No. 74/1956 of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad was also sufficient to prove that the property was in the possession of the plaintiff. The decree in that suit was put in execution as is seen from Ext. A3 and A4. Ext. A5 purchase certificate also shows the boundary of the properties. One cent out of the property made mention of in Ext. A5 had been acquired for widening the road. Ext. A5 is the Pattayam issued by the Land Tribunal and that was issued to the plaintiff. Ext. A6, a sale deed and Ext. A8, a certified copy of statement in O.A. 951/71 by one Ramachandran were also sufficient to disclose that the plaintiff had been at all times in possession of the plaint schedule properties. The Trial Court also examined Ext. C1 commission report and found that the property had been duly identified as one having road on all the three sides. Thus, on the basis of the conclusive proof, according to the Trial Court, injunction was granted as prayed for against the defendants.