(1.) The appeal arise from the judgment and decree passed in the suit for delivery of vacant possession and injunction. The aggrieved second and third defendants are the appellants.
(2.) The facts of the case a stated in the amended plaint:
(3.) The 1st defendant, who was always inimical towards the plaintiffs and their father, earlier in the year 1986 tried to trespass into the suit property. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1085 of 1986 against the 1 st defendant for injunction and obtained decree of permanent injunction on 25.01.1993 against the 1 st defendant his men and agents. The said decree became final and no appeal filed by the 1 st defendant. In respect of the 1.25 acres of land which Venkatachalam had succeeded in the title suit, Venkatachalam had executed a registered will dated 15.06.1992 bequeathing it to the plaintiffs. After the demise of Venkatachalam, the defendants attempted to enter the suit property under the guise of paying their respect to the first defendant's mother Maragathammal. Coming to know their intention, the plaintiffs warned the defendants not to attempt trespass. On 06.08.2004, the defendants again forced to gain entry into the suit property. When the plaintiffs approached the police for protection, the police had represented that unless the plaintiffs have suitable order from the Court, they will not be able to give protection. Therefore, though the plaintiffs are protected by the earlier decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, they are obliged to come forward with the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants men and agent from interfering the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.