N KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. DEVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India is preferred by Defendants 1 to 4 in O. S. No. 6 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram to reject the Plaint in O. S. No. 6 of 2003. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank in O. S. No. 335 of 2001.

(2.) O. S. No. 335 of 2001: - } (D. M. C. , Padmanabhapuram)} The Plaintiff has filed this Suit for Declaration of title and Possession and also for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant Devaraj from interfering with their possession. Case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the Property 1. 26 acres with Jackfruit trees thereon from the original owner by the Sale Deed dated 12. 09. 1986. Re. S. No. 31/3 and 915/7 which are poramboke land, which lies, on the North and West of the Patta Land are in possession of the plaintiff. As soon as the Plaintiff purchased the property, he has put up basement around the patta land and poramboke area and erected stone pillars over it and fenced the same with barbed wire fence in September 1986 itself. There were three Jack Fruit Trees in the Suit Property. The Plaintiff cut and removed the same in August 2001. The immediate Eastern property is a public cement road. The Defendant's Property is situated further East of the Road. Out of that property, the Defendant has sold Western most portion roughly about 10 cents to one Dr. Soliteeswaran retaining the Eastern most portion for himself. The said Soliteeswaran, who has purchased the property from the defendant has put up a house and the same lies as a separate plot. The fence on the Eastern side of the Suit Property got dismantled when the Jack Fruit trees were cut and removed. Taking advantage of dismantling Eastern Fence, the defendant is making claim over the Suit Property that the Suit Property belongs to him. The Plaintiff is settled at Chennai with his Wife and Son. Only his sister is available in the Suit village. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Declaration and possession and also consequential Injunction.

(3.) I. A. No. 47 of 2003:- The Defendant has filed this application for Interim Injunction. Alleging that on 04. 01. 2003, the Plaintiff has attempted to trespass into the Suit Property, the Defendant sought for interim Injunction.