VARGHESE DANIEL Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the fair and decretal order made in C.M.A. No. 175 of 1995 by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, on 7.2.1996, dismissing the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and vacating the interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 788 of 1995 in O.S. No. 551 of 1995 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 29.6.1995.

(2.) THE suit, O.S. No. 551 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the defendants etc., from evicting him unlawfully or interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. , Ground and Premises bearing door No. 74, "G" Block, Anna Nagar East, Madras -102. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to one R.P. Samuel by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Mr. Samuel constructed the residential house for which construction plaintiff lent Rs. 65,000/-. Mr. Samuel permitted the plaintiff to occupy the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff is occupying the suit property and paying property tax to the Corporation on behalf of Mr. Samuel. THE Voters list and the Ration C ard show the suit property as the residence of the plaintiff. Whileso, one Thiruvengadam, a neighbour started to give trouble. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No. 2833 of 1992 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for injunction in I.A. No. 8828 of 1992. He has obtained interim injunction against the said Thiruvengadam from interfering with his possession. When he learnt about the Tamil Nadu Housing Board preparing to issue sale deed to sofrie third party, he sent a notice to the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, on 20.11.1993 requesting him not to issue the sale deed to any one except to the said Samuel.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred C.M.A. No. 175 of 1995 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. THE lower appellate Court has observed that the petitioner has been acting as the care-taker of Mr. Samuel and was in possession in that capacity. It has further observed that the petitioner has been in possession with the permission of the owner of the property viz., R.P. Samuel. According to the lower appellate Court, the contention that the petitioner trespassed into the suit property was acceptable. Hence, he was not eligible to get the injunction.