AMARAVATHI Vs. SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the submissions made by Mr. R. V. Bibin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sai Bharath, learned counsel for the first respondent and by Mr. N. R. Gopalan, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. There is no representation for the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent has not been served with notice in this contempt petition.

(2.) THE petitioners herein were the appellants in Second Appeal No. 262 of 1993. The respondents herein were the defendants 2 to 6 in the above said second appeal. The second appeal arose out of a suit filed by the deceased Thirupurasundariammal and the first respondent herein. After the death of the Thirupurasundariammal, the respondents 2 to 5 herein had been impleaded in the said second appeal. The above said suit had been filed for bare injunction. The parties litigated therein based on their respective claims of title to the suit property. Hence, the learned Single Judge who heard the second appeal, observed that it was proper for the respondents therein (respondents herein) to file a necessary suit for declaration. Besides making the said observation, the learned Single Judge also recorded the consent of the parties to the second appeal to maintain status quo till the end of March 2007 enabling the respondents herein to file such a suit within the said period. It was also observed therein that the parties could seek interim orders before the trial Court if such a suit was filed. With the said observations, the findings of the Courts below were set aside and the parties were directed to workout their remedies in the new suit to be filed.

(3.) CONTENDING that the suit property was a vacant land without any superstructure therein and that after the disposal of the said second appeal on 12. 12. 2006 the respondents started putting up constructions all of a sudden on 15. 12. 2006, the petitioners have come forward with the present contempt petition.