The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due process of law, the need for specific pleadings and supporting materials to establish possession, and the critical examination of pleadings and documents in property disputes.

ORDER :

The petitioner in these revision petitions is the defendant in O.S.No.160 of 2019 on the files of the court below. The plaintiff filed the above suit praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and others under him from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and forcibly setting up residence therein and making any threat or challenge to the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.868 of 2019 praying for an interim prohibitory injunction inter alia restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. After the appearance of the defendant, the defendant filed I.A.No.1501 of2019 praying for an order of interim prohibitory injunction, restraining the plaintiff and his men from interfering with the peaceful living of the defendant and his family in the plaint schedule property and from evicting the defendant from the plaint schedule property forcibly without recourse to due process oflaw.

2. The learned Munsiff as per common order dated 10.04.2019, dismissed I.A.No.866 of 2019 and partially allowed I.A.No.1501 of 2019, against which the plaintiff filed appeals. As per common judgment dated 18.11.2019 in CMA Nos. 3/2019 and 4/2019, the Appellate Court allowed the appeals setting aside the order passed by the Munsiffs court. Aggrieved by the said common judgment, these revision petitions have been filed by the defendant.

3. Heard both sides.

4. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the younger brother of the defendant. The plaintiff is a priest, working in Italy. He used to come to India regularly. While so, the plaintiff and the defendant together purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 2008 as per Ext.A1 sale deed. Thereafter, as per Ext.A2 release deed, the defendant released his right over the above said property in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rupees Eight lakh.

5. The contention of the plaintiff is that after the execution of Ext.A2 release deed on 12.09.2014 also, one of the keys of the house was entrusted with the defendant, as a care taker of the said building, being the brother of the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 23.01.2019, the plaintiff was informed from the diocese that a complaint was filed against the plaintiff by the defendant claiming right over the plaint schedule property. It is contended by the plaintiff that eventhough the defendant had tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property in January, 2019, the attempt of the defendant could not be succeeded due to the timely intervention by the plaintiff and others.

6. It is not disputed that at the time of purchasing, there was no building in the property. The plaint schedule property, having an extent of 3.80 ares was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant for a total consideration of Rupees Four Lakh. The plaintiff would contend that the said amount was paid by the plaintiff and it was only for the purpose of doing necessary things in the property in the absence of the plaintiff that the property was purchased in the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant. Thereafter, the building was constructed by the plaintiff in the said property. The defendant was entrusted with one of the keys of the building, as a caretaker, to do necessary things in the absence of the plaintiff.

7. The defendant, on the other hand, would contend that the defendant has been residing in the building in the plaint schedule property ever since its construction in the year 2013 and hence the defendant cannot be evicted from the said building without the authority of law. It has been further contended by the defendant that Ext.A2 document was a sham document, as the said document was executed only for the purpose of availing loan from the bank and that the parties never intended to act upon the said document. Since it was contended by the defendant that the defendant d