The main legal point established in the judgment is that lawful possession of property, even if disputed, can be protected by way of an order of injunction until eviction is carried out through due process of law.

This appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment and decree in A.S.No.63 of 1996 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The defendants 1 to 12 who have lost their defence before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. The suit is for bare injunction.

2. The facts in brief in the amended plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs are residing in the Government Poramboke land bearing S.Nos.75/3 and 76/3 in Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk. The said lands ramain a waste lands. The plaintiffs who hail from poor and down-trodden society without any house of their own for their shelter have occupied the said land in property and have put up 18 huts about thirty years ago. In the year 1970,they converted the thatched roof into that of a pucca tiled house and ever since they are residing in the said row of houses. Since the land in which the plaintiffs have put up their huts belongs to the Government, they were no obstruction or abstacle from any quarter. The revenue officials have also levied "B" memo tax to the plaintiffs . The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint suit property. The defendants who hail from upper caste and who being rich are not liking to have the plaintiffs in the survey fields, the defendants have started giving all sorts of troubles. The defendants are having their property on the eastern side and western side of the plaintiffs houses. The defendants are making all sorts of troubles to throw away the plaintiffs from the suit property. After having failed in all their attempts, the defendants started collecting their hirelings and rowdy elements and began to openly threat that they are going to destroy all the houses by using bulldozers. On 112. 1990, the defendants have collected number of their hirelings and rowdy elements and came to the suit property and threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences in the event of not removing the huts from the suit properties. The defendants have no right or title in respect of the suit property. If at all any action could be taken it is only by the Government. If the defendants are allowed to succeed in their attempts in thwarting the defendants in the suit property then the plaintiffs have no other shoulder to reside, they will practically be thrown out in the street. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants 2 to 12 have adopted the written statement filed by the first defendants as follows:

Survey No.75/3 and 76/3, Uppilipalayam (Singanallur) Village are poramboke lands which are classified as Road Poramboke in the revenue records. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the plaint schedule propeprpty for the past thirty years. The allegations that there are 18 pucca tiled houses put up by the plaintiffs in the suit property is not true. The construction is the recent one. There was no assessment of B memo tax to the suit property as alleged by the plaintiffs. Many of the plaintiffs are provided with patta lands at various other places. Admittedly, the defendants are residing on the east and west of the suit property. Only through the occupied area of the plaintiffs, the corpse were taken to graveyard. Because of their recent occupation, the plaintiffs are obstructing the pathway leading to the graveyard. The defendants have not made any attempt to destroy the houses put up by the plaintiffs in the suit property with the help of the hirelings and rowdy elements. The Government is going to take action against the plaintiffs on the representation made by the defendants. The defendants have filed writ petition in this regard before the High Court, Madras and the said writ petition is still pending. The plaintiffs have also entered into the patta land belonging to the defendants. The defendants have taken necessary steps to evict the plaintiffs from the encroached area. There is no cause of action. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4) 13t