C VALLIAPPAN Vs. C SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant in O.S. No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Salem, is the Petitioner in the above C.R.P.

(2.) THE First Respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 273 of 2004 against the Petitioner herein for the following reliefs: a. Declaring that the Suit 'A' schedule property is a common cart trackb. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'A' schedule propertyc. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants and his men from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule property.d. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant and his men from interfering with the Plaintiff-s peaceful user and enjoyment of ingress and egress of vehicles, machineries, etc. through the Suit 'C' schedule property and thereafter through Suit 'A' schedule property.e. Granting permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant and his men from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the common well situated in the eastern side of the Defendant-s property in S. No. 136/1A along with the pipeline, water, electricity pump and electricity service connection for irrigating the coconut trees in the Suit 'B' schedule property.f. Directing the Defendant by means of mandatory injunction to lay a new 15 wide cart immediately north of the HT electricity meter board room and link the same to the existing common cart track (Suit 'A' schedule property) within a time specified by the Hon-ble Court and on his failure to comply with the order to pass a mandatory injunction directing the demolishment of the HT electricity meter board roomg. Directing the Defendant by means of mandatory injunction to remove the thatched structure (Suit 'D' schedule property) and h. Directing the Defendant by means of mandatory injunction to restore the gate at the eastern side of Suit 'A' schedule property.

(3.) THE Plaintiff filed a Counter contending that he had informed the Respondents 2 and 3 about the pendency of the Suit at the time of negotiations. It is admitted that he furnished the Suit number and Suit hearing date and informed the Respondents 2 and 3 about the granting of injunction by the Court. THE sale by the Plaintiff to the Respondents 2 and 3 is admitted. THE Petition was not opposed by the Plaintiff.