MANSOORALIKHAN Vs. V K JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against order dated 17th Sept. , 2007, passed by learned Judge in C. S. No. 423/95, whereby and whereunder the Commissioner of Police has been directed to take steps on the complaint, whereby request has been made to the Commissioner of Police to evict the encroachers, who have no legal right on the property.

(2.) AS the case could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant ones and the relevant submissions as made by the parties.

(3.) THE appellant claims to be the tenant of the suit property through the 2nd respondent, Appu John (since deceased ). He is not a party to the suit nor any application was preferred against him either by the plaintiff or the defendant. V. K. John, the first respondent in the present case is the plaintiff, who preferred the suit for partition of immovable properties set out in Schedule A and B by meets and bounds and prayed for allotting to plaintiff his 50% share. The 2nd respondent, Appu John (since deceased), is the 1st defendant; one Leela Seetharaman (since deceased) is the 2nd defendant and her husband, W. S. Seetharaman, 4th respondent herein, is the 3rd defendant to the suit. It appears that orders were passed in the case from time to time in different applications preferred in the said suit. It further appears that O. A. No. 293/95 filed by plaintiff in the suit in which learned Judge, vide order dated 22nd July, 1996, granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants of the suit from alienating, altering and demolishing the property described in the schedule. The 1st defendant, Appu John (since deceased), created an encumbrance in favour of one Goenka for which both of them were punished by this Court in contempt proceeding for violating the order and awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/=, which was affirmed in contempt appeal No. 15/05. Learned Judge noticed that another alienation stated to have been made by said Appu John (since deceased) in favour of Manzoor Ali Khan (appellant herein), which is the subject matter of a contempt proceeding.