(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
(2.) The grievance of the plaintiff is that the first defendant acted against the agreement and attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Left with no other alternative, the suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant.
(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that the suit property belongs to the second defendant Municipality and the so called agreement marked as Ex.A.1 was a created document. The first defendant virtually questioned the very right of the plaintiff to seek for the relief of permanent injunction and accordingly he sought for the dismissal of the suit.