B KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. KAMALAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the legal representatives of the defendant in O.S.No.264 of 1993 and plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai.

(2.) THE respondents filed O.S.No.264 of 1993 for recovery of possession of the suit property. THE case of the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 1993 was that B and C schedule properties form part of A schedule property and the same was originally owned by Narayanasami and Nagammal and they are the legal representatives of Narayanasami and Nagammal and the B schedule property was given on lease to the defendant by name Balasubramanian who is the predecessor in title of the appellants herein and the lease was renewed and finally a lease deed was executed on 15.3.1979 for a period of nine years and that lease period expired on 8.7.1988 and thereafter, the plaintiffs issued notice to the lessee K.Balasubramanian asking him to vacate and hand over possession and as the lessee did not hand over possession, the suit was filed for recovery of possession of the properties. In the suit, three schedules were stated and A schedule comprises of B and C schedules and B schedule is having an extent of 46 cents wherein a cinema theatre was constructed by the defendant and the C schedule property is a vacant site.

(3.) BOTH the suits were tried together and a common judgment was passed and the Trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.264 of 1993 filed by the respondents herein and dismissed the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 1990 and decreed the suit in respect of permanent prohibitory injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 1993 filed A.S.No.215 of 1995 on the file of the District Court, Pudukottai and also filed A.S.No.214 of 1995 against the decree in O.S.No.140 of 1990 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 1993 viz., Balasubramanian also filed Cross Appeal against the rejection of the relief of mandatory injunction.