1. These revisions are filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 132 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The suit mentioned above filed by the respondents restraining the defendant, his men agents and power agents from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; for payment of costs by the defendants and such other further remedies.

2. The description of the property as found in the schedule to the plaintiff reads thus:

"Erode Registration District, Erode Sub Registration District, erode Town, within the Erode Municipal Limits, original old S.F.Nos.100 A1, 100 C1 Old S.F. No. 85/2, 85/3, 85/4 Resurvey Ward A Block 15 T.S. No. 2, 3,4. In this the land and the sheds put up within the following boundaries: South of the Bus stand road North of the land of Thangamuthu vaigars East of Royal Thetre West of the land and passage of the Municipality, with all the purtenances and all the other easementary rights in an area of 0.56307 square metres".

3. In the plaint it is stated that the plaint properties are their ancestral properties. The properties were originally purchased by one Arumugha Mudaliar and A.Marimuthy Mudaliar who are the sons of Arunachala Mudaliar, on 5. 1942. Subsequently, the two brothers divided the properties along with other properties on 312. 1956. A schedule properties were allotted to the share of Arumugha Mudaliar and B schedule properties were allotted to the share of Marimuthu Mudaliar. Both of them were allotted their shares in the suit properties.

4. Marimuthu Mudalier and his sons divided their respective shares in the suit properties under a registered partition deed dated 7. 1969 and the suit properties were allotted to the share of plaintiffs 1 to 3 in this case. In the other branch of Arumuga Mudaliar also there was a partition on 22. 1970 by way of a panchayat karar and the portions of the suit properties were allotted to the shares of Palaniappan and Shanmugam, the fourth and fifth plaintiffs in the suit. One of the sharers Palaniappan who took a share as per family arrangement on 22. 1970 died and his rights devolved on plaintiffs 6 and 7. The respective parties are in possession and they are also paying taxes due to the Government.

5. It is also stated that the defendant is not in any way connected to the family of the plaintiffs or to the suit properties and he is attempting to trespass into the suit properties and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and he has no right to do so.

6. It is also stated that the defendant along with his men attempted to tresspass into the suit properties on 13. 1998 and the plaintiffs prevented him to do so. But the defendant continued to attempt which necessitated the filing of this suit.

7. Along with the suit, the plaintiff the respondents herein filed an Interlocutory Application No. 114 of 1998 for injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession. The schedule of properties is also the same as described above. On the interlocutory application, the lower Court, as per order dated 20.3.1998 passed the following order:

"Heard . perused the affidavit and the documents. Prima facie case is made out. Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. The documents filed by the petitioners reveal that they are in possession of the properties. Hence notice to the respondent by 4. 1988. Ad-interim injunction is granted till then. Order 39 rule 3 is to be complied with".

Against the said order, the defendant has preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 988 of 1988.

8. On 23. 1998 the plaintiffs filed another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking police protection to implement and enforce the orders of the Court, and in the affidavit in that Interlocutory Application No. 118 of 1998, it is stated in para 3 thus:

"Inspite of the orders of this Honble Court this respondent continues to threaten our peaceful posse