NALINA AMMAL Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order in E. A. No. 717 of 2007 in O. S. No. 230 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram. The said E. A. No. 717 of 2007 was filed under Section 151 CPC for police aid to implement the order of injunction passed in O. S. No. 230 of 1991 as confirmed in the second appeal in S. A. No. 1107 of 1995 of this Court. The learned Principal District Munsif, after observing that the remedy open to the petitioners to file necessary application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, has dismissed the application as not maintainable.

(2.) THE point for determination in this revision is whether the petitioners are entitled to get an order for police aid to implement the decree in S. A. No1107 of 1995. Event though the suit O. S. No. 230 of 1995 was dismissed as against Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property, the suit was decreed in entirety in the second appeal in S. A. No. 1107 of 1995 of this Court. For putting up the toilet and bath room in Item No. 2, the revision petitioners have filed C. M. P. No. 2481 of 1998 in S. A. No. 1107 of 1995 pending the second appeal. The said petition was allowed by this Court on the basis of ratio decidenti in Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami -vs- Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy, Chidambaram (1993 (1) M. L. J,274 ). The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relying on another Judgment of this Court in A1 Fathima Munavera and others -v- S. Kandasamy (2003 (3)M. L. J. 294) wherein the facts are similar in nature would contend that the police protection for a specific period can be allowed to implement the decree in a civil suit. The facts of the said ratio relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are runs as follows: The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 461 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli got a decree in their favour on 1. 10. 2002 for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs thereafter made arrangements to construct a compound wall in the suit property, but the same was effectively prevented by the men of the respondent. Hence the plaintiffs have filed a complaint before the police, but the police did not take any action. Hence the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application E. A. No. 886 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli to give a direction to the Police to give protection. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the said application which resulted in preferring the said revision wherein it has been observed by the learned Judge of this Court as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that as far as Item No. 1 and 5 cents in Item No. 2 are concerned, the petitioners can sought for the relief of police aid but not in respect of the undivided share in the well, pump set, switches etc in Item No. 2. The said submission by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has got force and the petitioners cannot implement the decree in respect of the undivided share in the well, motor pump set, switches etc in the item No. 2 with police aid unless the same is declared in partition. Barring undivided share in respect of the Well, motor pump set, switches etc, the petitioners are entitled to implement the decree for the relief of injunction in respect of the other properties ie. , Item Nos. 1 and 5 cents in Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties.