SUNDARAM Vs. MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant s case that he was the owner of the suit property and entitled to a decree for injunction was concurrently rejected.

(2.) THE suit property is an extent of 23 cents in Survey no. 159/3, Anumanthapuram Village . According to the appellant he, the respondents and one Kaliyamurthy are brothers. THEy divided the properties among themselves orally in 1960. We are not concerned with kaliyamurthy in this case. THE property comprised in Survey No. 159/3 was one of the properties so divided. THE appellant took the western half, and the second respondent took the eastern half and both of them were given joint patta and have been pay ing the taxes. THE appellant has been raising crops in his portion. Prior to the suit, the prices in the land in and around the place rose because the Ariyalur Government Cement Factory came up in the nearby area. THE respondents with mala fide motive attempted to interfere with the appellants possession and therefore the suit was filed.

(3.) RELIANCE was placed on B. M. Fathima Bibi and 2 others v. Idris Mohammed and 7 others , 1997 (2) L. W. 366 Sinnammal v. Muthurama-lingam ), 100 LW. 668 Madhukar and others v. Sangram and others , 2001 (3) L. W. 294 and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwai , 2001 (1) Supreme today 642 : JT 2001 (2) SC 407.