PARTHIBAN Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

(2.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for relief of permanent injunction. While the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, the first appellate court has reversed the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on 31.10.2007, the present second appeal is filed. For the sake of better understanding, the parties are described according to their litigative status found in the plaint.

(3.) The brief facts as found in the plaint:- The suit property for which the plaintiff seeks injunction, was rightfully purchased by one Devi Lakshmi on 12.02.1978. She died leaving behind her husband Govindarasu, who is none other than her maternal uncle. After the death of Devi Lakshmi, her husband Govindarasu mortgaged the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The said Govindarasu was unable to redeem the mortgage. Therefore, he put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property in the year 1996. The plaintiff has paid tax and obtained water connection and enjoying the property since 1999. Govindarasu has also executed an agreement for sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as part of sale consideration out of total of Rs.6,00,000/-. The defendant claiming himself as the owner of the property, trespassed into the suit property with the help of police and damaged the superstructure on 20.10.1999. Hence the suit for permanent injunction.