PONNUSAMY Vs. V E KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/appellants/respondents/defendants have filed this present civil revision petition as against the Judgment made in C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 dated 8.9.2008 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode in dismissing the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ appellants/respondents/defendants contends that Exs A4 and A5 convey more properties that was allotted to Periyasamy Gounder and hence the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application in I.A.No.368 of 2008 and the respondents/respondents/ petitioners/ plaintiffs do not have the title beyond what is owned by their vendor under Exs A1 and A3 and the trial Court by virtue of Exs B1 to B11 ought to have dismissed I.A.No.368 of 2008 and that the trial Court has not taken into account of Exs B3 to B11, the revenue records and moreover respondents/respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs have not proved the factum of possession and the lower Court has not borne in mind the fact that an injunction cannot be granted based upon Ex A3 Will and therefore prays for allowing this revision in the interest of justice.

(3.) AS a matter of fact, before the trial Court on either side documents Exs A1 to A22 and Exs R1 to R11 were marked. Aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.368 of 2008 dated 18.6.2008 by the trial Court, the defendants as appellants have projected C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 and the first appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal inter alia holding that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of ad interim injunction and resultantly dismissed the appeal. Moreover, the first appellate authority in paragraph 20 of his order has categorically opined that the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs have purchased the property from one Chenniappa Gounder through Exs A4 and A5 and therefore they have obtained patta and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, in view of the concurrent findings taken by the lower Courts, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is of the considered view that since the main suit itself is only for injunction, the parties are at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence and project their case to thrash out all issues and in that view of the matter, disposes of the civil revision without costs.