KARUNAKARAN Vs. K.VIJAYA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who has concurrently lost in both the Courts below is the appellant before this Court. The challenge is to the decree for injunction granted by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.642 of 1993 which was confirmed by the Additional District Court Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.15 of 2002. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the above suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property has been described as follows:-

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is a Grama Natham Poramboke which was in the occupation of one Veerabadra Mudaliar. After his death his son Murugesan Mudaliyar, was in possession and occupation of the same till the year 1972. Thereafter, Murugesan Mudaliyar shifted to Madras and the plaintiff was in permissive occupation of the suit property from Murugesan Mudaliyar. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 19/3/1977, the said Murugesan agreed to sale the suit property to him. The plaint would further read that the property was being enjoyed by the plaintiff by stocking manure and tethering cattle. The sale consideration was a sum of Rs.1,000.00 for which an advance of Rs.750.00was paid and the balance sale consideration of Rs.250.00 was to be paid within a period of one year. On 15/3/1978, the balance sale consideration of Rs.250.00 was also paid and an entry made in the reverse of the agreement. It was informed to the plaintiff that since the suit property was a Grama Natham Poramboke, the sale deed was not required to be executed and registered, therefore the sale deed had not been executed.