LAWS(MAD)-1996-8-72

NILGIRI DISTRICT JANATHA PARTY Vs. A RAHIM

Decided On August 09, 1996
NILGIRI DISTRICT JANATHA PARTY Appellant
V/S
A RAHIM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 411 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court , Nilgiris at Ootacamund is the appellant in the above second appeal. The said plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any of the party men of Indira Congress or anybody claiming through the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the plaintiff or its agents.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as follows: THE suit premises is situate at Lower Bazaar Road commonly known as kamaraj Bhavan is being used as the office premises of the plaintiff party and the Secretary of the plaintiff party is having control of the said premises. THE records of the plaintiff party, both at the District level and the Town level are kept in the said premises. THE plaintiff has been in effective possession and enjoyment of the said premises eversince the Janatha Party was formed. THE defendants, who are the members of Indira Congress party have been conspiring to take possession of the suit property by force and illegal means. THE defendants during the split in congress in the year 1969 have joined Indira congress and since then they have severed all their ties with the old Congress members which subsequently came to known as Janatha Party in the year 1977 and have never at any time been in possession of the suit premises. THE defendants are bent upon entering into the premises by force and commit acts of loot, vandalism, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit.

(3.) AGAINST the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining the appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower court is right in finding that the suit is not maintainable especially when the point is not raised in the written statement"