JAYA CHANDRAN S/O LATE SRI. C. MUNIRTHNAM AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. MALA @ OONIMALA W/O SRI. B.P. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants. The plaintiff -respondent files a suit for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have decreed this suit. The specific case made out by the plaintiff -respondent is that the suit schedule property was under the ownership of Bharat Gold Mines Limited ('BGML' for short). The father of the plaintiff was working in BGML and was residing in the suit schedule property. After his death, the plaintiff has been residing. Defendants are none other than the mother, brother and sisters of the plaintiff. She would contend that since she is in possession her possession shall be protected.

(2.) THE defendants entered appearance filed written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff is in permissive possession. Hence, in the circumstances, granting of injunction does not arise. No evidence was let in support of their respective contentions. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of injunction. The same is confirmed. I am of the view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration inasmuch as the defendants themselves had consented that the plaintiff is in permissive possession. I am of the view that if the defendants have any right they are required to initiate appropriate proceedings seeking a share in the property. Reserving liberty to do so the appeal stands dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.