ARUMUGAM Vs. G MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 429 of 1994 is the petitioner herein. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 705 of 1994 in O.S. No. 429 of 1994 = THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties under the 1st defendant and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In the suit, the 3rd defendant filed an application. I.A. No. 705 of 1994 for an interim injunction, restraining the respondent/plaintiff from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the 3rd defendant till the disposal of the suit. When this petition came-up for hearing, the trial court ordered notice to the respondent/plaintiff. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the 3rd defendant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/3rd defendant the suit property originally belonged to one Bodi Maistry, who is the father of the plaintiff. After his death, his three sons, viz. Kannan (D1), Govindarajan (D2) and one P.M. Chinnappa inherited the properties belonging to the said Bodi Maistry. They were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties without any regular partition. The 3rd defendant purchased the share belonging to Govindarajan and Chinnappa under a registered sale deed dated 25-7-1994. The remaining 1/3rd share belongs to the 1st defendant and his two sons. As per the sale deed dated 7-7-1994 possession of about 0.96 cents was handed over to the petitioner/3rd defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. ACCORDING to the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff filed the above suit suppressing the real facts and falsely stating that he is a cultivating tenant under the 1st defendant and he is in possession enjoyment of the suit land. He neither filed any document to show that he is a cultivating tenant nor did he prove his possession. Therefore, the trial court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff which was sought for in I.A. No. 408 of 1994 and ordered only notice. The 3rd defendant also filed a counter in the said application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the present revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India since the trial court without considering the case put forward by the 3rd defendant on merits and without looking into the documents ordered notice. According to the learned counsel such an order passed by the trial court, without assigning any reason and without pursuing the records appears to be illegal.