SUBRAMANIYAM Vs. P. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the original suit O.S. No. 90 of 2001 are the appellants in the second appeal. The defendant therein is the respondent in the second appeal. The appellants herein filed O.S. No. 90 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruppur for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with their running 8 power looms located in the suit property, namely an extent of 1.29.5 Hectare and the power loom godown constructed therein bearing old Door No. 1/1, New Door No. 1/2B with electricity connection No. 381 comprised in S. No. 153/IE in Thoravalure village within the sub -registration district of Kunnathur, Tiruppur Taluk. The said prayer was made on the basis of the plaint averment that the above said immovable property was purchased by the second appellant, who is none other than the father of the first appellant, under two sale deeds dated 6 -6 -1978 and 6 -6 -1979; that in the property thus purchased by the second appellant, the first appellant put up a power loom godown and a residential house at one part of the property based on the promise made by the second appellant by executing an undertaking deed dated 31 -8 -1983 to the effect that as and when the property would be partitioned, the said portion would be allotted to the share of the first appellant; that the first plaintiff put up power looms in the godown constructed by him and was doing waiving business for some time; that thereafter due to his inability to maintain and run the power looms, he sold the power looms to third parties and let out the power loom godown to one Thirumoorthy, son of Ramasamy Gounder on lease; that the said Thirumoorthy was also not able to properly run the power looks as he had other businesses also, as a result of which the said Thirumoorthy by a lease deed dated 16 -4 -2001 leased out 8 power looms and their accessories to the first appellant for a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/ -; that the respondent/defendant, who is related to Thirumoorthy, wanted Thirumoorthy to lease out the power looms to him and the same was declined by Thirumoorthy; that aggrieved by the same, the respondent/defendant developed jealousy against the first appellant and made an attempt to trespassed into the power loom godown on 11 -5 -2011, which was thwarted by the first appellant with his well wishers and that under the said circumstances, the appellants/plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent herein/defendant on the basis of the averments made in the written statement in which the plaint allegations were denied. Besides the denial of the plaint allegations, the respondent/defendant also made the following contentions:

(3.) BASED on the above said averments, the respondent herein/defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.