S RAMASAMY Vs. V RANGANAYAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE caveat was entered by respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), when the revision came-up for admission, by consent of both parties, the entire Revision was heard.

(2.) SECOND defendant in O.S. No. 6673 of 1998, on the file of XVIII the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras', is the revision petitioner. The Revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN the counter statement filed by petitioner herein, he has said that he is in possession of 16 cents of land out of 46 cents of land and this 16 cents forms part of Survey No. 149 which is situated on the northern side. According to petitioner, this Survey No. 149 Part and 16 cents in Survey No. 150 are lying as one block and the same originally belonged to one Singarammal who obtained a sale deed in 1969. The possession of Singarammal was also recognised by the Government. It is said that these 16 cents are really a Government poramboke land and even proceedings were initiated against Singarammal under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1905. On the death of Singarammal, the right devolved on her son Velayutham and other legal heirs, and all of them executed sale deeds in favour of second defendant and others in the year 1997. It is also said that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. As early as in 1996, the very same plaintiff has filed a suit as O.S. 1973 of 1996 for the very same relief against the first defendant - Velayutham, the vendor of petitioners and few others, for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. IN that suit, no injunction was granted, though an application was moved for that purpose. IN the present suit, there is no statement about the filing of the earlier suit and the refusal of the Court to grant an interim order. On the basis of the title they also put up a compound wall around the property which includes 16 cents in Survey No. 150. On the basis of the ad-interim order, even the compound wall has been demolished by plaintiffs, taking advantage of the holidays. It is said that the decree in O.S. 530 of 1969 has no relevance, and in the present suit, no reliance could be placed on an ex parte decree. After the ad-interim injunction, plaintiffs attempted to interfere with the possession. Complaint to the local police was of no avail. It is also said that even though the Court directed compliance of provisions of Rule of Order 39 C.P.C., it was not done.