NARENDRA KUMAR JOHAR Vs. A.SHAHJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals arise out of two suits for permanent injunction. The plaintiff in both the suits is one and the same. The defendants alone are different. The suit property is also one and the same. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to T.B.M.Ameerjan /father of the plaintiff Thiru. Shahjahan.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that his father executed the settlement deed dtd. 5/5/1989 in his favour and also handed over possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since. The plaintiff's father was in relationship with one woman by name Zuleka Bi and that through her, he had begotten sons and daughters. At their instance, the plaintiff was facing interference with his possession and enjoyment. Therefore, he filed O.S.No.1479 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli for restraining his father and other defendants born to him through the said Zuleka Bi from doing so. In the said suit, the first defendant Ameerjan filed written statement denying the execution of the settlement deed. During the pendency of the suit, he passed away and an ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 3/3/2003 came to be passed in O.S.No. 1479 of 1994.

(3.) After the institution of O.S.No. 1479 of 1994, the plaintiff's father had executed a sale deed dtd. 15/2/1995 in favour of the appellant Thiru. Narendra Kumar Johar. Since the plaintiff apprehended interference with his possession and enjoyment at the hands of the subsequent purchaser, he filed another suit in O.S.No. 1938 of 1996. The defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. The plaintiff Shahjhan examined himself as P.W.I in O.S.No. 1938 of 1996 and marked Ex.Al to Ex.A7. Narendra Kumar Johar examined himself as D.W.I and marked Ex.Bl to Ex.B6. After a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court by judgment and decree dtd. 10/9/2004 decreed the suit as prayed for. The appellant herein filed A.S.No.170 of 2004 against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1938 of 1996 and A.S.No.248 of 2005 against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1479 of 1994. The first appellate court dismissed both the appeals on 7/12/2007. The appeals were disposed of by separate judgments. Questioning the judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 170 of 2004 arising out of O.S.No. 1938 of 1996, S.A.(MD)No.550 of 2008 has been filed. Questioning the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.248 of 2005 arising out of O.S.No. 1479 of 1994, S.A.(MD)No.551 of 2008 has been filed.