CHINNATHAYI Vs. S. M. SYED KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for bare injunction is the appellant before this Court. The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property and other properties had been purchased by his paternal grandmother, Fathima Beevi under a Sale deed dtd. 7/11/1939. The suit property has been described as follows in the plaint.

(3.) It is the contention of the plaintiff that after the death of Fathima Beevi, his father, Syed Masthan, who was the son of Fathima Beevi, had inherited her property and was in enjoyment of the same. He had got the patta in respect of the suit property mutated in his name on 20/3/1991. Barring the suit property, Syed Masthan had sold the other properties to third parties. Thereafter, a joint patta bearing No.531 in the name of the plaintiff's father and others came to be issued. Syed Masthan died on 21/8/2006, leaving behind the plaintiff, who inherited and was in enjoyment of the same. The defendant is a third party to the suit property. The defendant had purchased the properties near the suit property from the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff had made an application on 26/11/2012 to have the patta mutated in his name in respect of the suit property. The defendant wanted the plaintiff to sell the property for a low price to her which was refused by the plaintiff. Therefore, incensed by the response, the defendant on 27/4/2013, attempted to trespass into the suit properties and dump stones. However, the plaintiff had with the help of the neighbours prevented this attempt. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.