B.NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. R.P.RAMAESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2020 filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Palani. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2020, on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2020, for injunction restraining the revision petitioner herein from interfering with the business of the plaintiff or from forcibly evicting the respondent from the suit property. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is a co-owner, having purchased the property jointly along with the respondent/plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that both have sold undivided 1/3rd share of the suit property to another. The plaintiff appears to have filed the suit, on the basis of tenancy agreement alleged to have been executed by the revision petitioner and the other co-owner in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. Apart from executing the lease agreement, it is also stated in the plaint that the revision petitioner and the other co-owner have also given a letter to the effect that they have no objection for the plaintiff to carry on business in the suit property for the purpose of availing loan from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC). In the cause of action paragraph, it is also stated by the respondent that the revision petitioner is trying to interfere with his possession on 20.03.2020 and that he is likely to interfere with the business of the plaintiff being run in the suit premises.

(3.) From the reading of the plaint, it discloses the cause of action. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit based on an unregistered lease deed and that he cannot seek injunction as against a co-owner of the property. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that right of one co-owner to exercise his right in respect of every parcel of the land should be protected, the situation in the present case is different. The respondent has filed the suit in his capacity as a tenant. Hence, the suit cannot be treated as one filed by one co-owner as against the other co-owner to injunct him from exercising his right as a co- owner. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of contract.