MURUGAN ALIAS MUNIAPPA PILLAI Vs. B PICHAIKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit O.S. No. 16/73 before the Subordinate Judge's Court Nagercoil, against the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 9430/- as damages with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs averring as follows: THE suit properties of an extent of 4.37 acres belonged to Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam and they were leased to the appellant on 13-03-1963. THE appellant was in possession and enjoyment as lessee. THE respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 219/71 before the District Munsif s Court, Nagercoil, on 15-03-1971 against the appellant and obtained an order of injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing this possession till the disposal of the suit. Taking advantage of the order of injunction, he harvested the crops raised by the appellant on 31-1-1972 and caused a loss to an extent of Rs. 4400/-. THE suit was dismissed on 29-02-1972. THEreafter, the appellant raised kanni crop in the lands in 1148 M.E. on 23-04-1972. THE respondent filed an appeal in A.S. No. 80/72 against the decision in O.S. No. 219/71. He also filed an application in I.A. No. 108/72 for injunction to restrain the appellant and the injunction application was dismissed. THE respondent took up the matter to the High Court in C.M.A. No. 237/72 and got an order of injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession and harvested the crops on 23-08 1972 causing loss to the appellant to the extent of Rs. 5030/-. THE suit had therefore been filed for recovery of Rs. 9430/-.

(2.) THE respondent resisted the suit contending that the appellant's father-in-law one Bhoothalingam got lease of the suit property in the name of the appellant. THE appellant sub-leased the properties to the respondent from 1964 after receiving a premium of Rs. 500/-. THE respondent had been cultivating the land as lessee of the appellant. His name was also recorded in the tenancy record as a tenant. After the death of Bhoothalingam, the appellant attempted to take forcible possession of the properties from the respondent. THE respondent had therefore to file suit O.S. No. 219/71, got an order of injunction and the injunction order has also been made absolute ultimately. THE order of injunction was confirmed by the Appellate Court. He raised paddy and harvested the same and deposited the value of the pattom in court. THE order of injunction had been obtained on genuine grounds and the suit as framed was not maintainable and the amount claimed was excessive.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the respondent ought not to have been penalised for the act of court. The court alone granted injunction order and the respondent could not be attributed with any malice and unless malice was established, there was no question of any relief being granted to the appellant. Even the decree for Rs. 750/- granted by the lower Appellate Court was clearly wrong.