- (1.)ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 02.08.2006 made in C.M.A.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, reversing the order and decreetal dated 12.09.2005 made in I.A.No.177 of 2005 in O.S.No.86 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gudalur, this civil revision petition is focussed.
(2.)HEARD both sides.
A summarisation and summation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men or agents or anybody claiming through them from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Further, the respondent/plaintiff in the suit filed I.A.No.177 of 2005 seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents in the I.A. from interfering with the following suit property:

"Survey Numbers Extent Acres 27 1.02 28 1.35 36/1 101.20 minus 8.33 cents 101.12 acres 36/2 10.42 36/3 79.47 36/4 3.26 37/2B, 2C, 1A 277.27 37/3 13.59 37/2D, 4 4.21 37/2A 116.11 ------ Total extent 607.83 acres"
3. The trial Court dismissed the said I.A.177 of 2005, whereupon appeal was filed before the Sub Court, Uthagamandalam and after setting aside the said order of the learned District Munsif Court, the Court granted interim injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the injunction granted, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that while filing caveat petition before the District Munsif Court, in the said petition, the extent of property was specified as 8.33 cents; taking undue advantage of such discrepancy, the petitioners herein excluding 8.33 cents of land, filed the present suit for 607.83 acres; the revision petitioners in fact have been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 8.33 acres ever since 1946; Gratuity Commissioner also gave a finding to the effect that the first revision petitioner's husband Putumathan encroached upon an extent of 8.25 acres in that area and hence caused loss to the present plaintiff herein; and therefore the present plaintiff cannot be made to pay gratuity to Putumathan; the observation made by the Gratuity Commissioner would enure to the benefit of the present revision petitioners to argue that they have been in possession and enjoyment of 8.33 acres of land; the revision petitioners have been cultivating coffee there and that fact also got reflected in the revenue records; while so, the respondent simply filed a cryptic plaint alleging as though they have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 607.83 acres; the plaintiff has not acquired any right or title over the suit property; based on some agreement to sell they claim right of possession also, which was not demonstrated or exemplified before the trial Court; when the suit itself is for permanent injunction, the Sub Court was not justified in granting injunction in the absence of clinching evidence and accordingly he prays for setting the order of the Sub Court.

(3.)WHEREAS, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would put across his argument to the effect that based on a valid agreement to sell, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of the suit property and in fact the said agreement covers even that 8.33 cents of land in which the revision petitioners have put up a shed for their residence and enjoyment; at no point of time either Putumathan or the revision petitioners enjoyed an extent of 8.33 acres and they had not cultivated any coffee. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition.
At this juncture, I would like to observe that the suit itself is for permanent injunction as against the revision petitioners/defendants. The crucial issue in a bare injunction suit would be as to who was in possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Undoubtedly at times incidentally, the Court while considering the prayer for granting permanent injunction might go into the prima facie title of the plaintiff also in order to find out as to whether the plaintiff can buttress and fortify his stand of possession based on title also. But the main issue would be as to who was in possession as on the date of filing of the suit. It is also a trite proposition of law that trespassers who establishes their possession is entitled to be evicted only under due process of law and not arbitrarily and forcefully. Undisputed facts are to the effect that before the trial Court in the I.A., as per the well settled procedures no oral evidence was taken, but only documents were got marked. On the side of the petitioners herein Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked and on the side of the respondent Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.