Possession established through agreements necessitates due process for eviction; injunctive relief cannot be granted against a true owner.

JUDGMENT

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) has come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrrent findings recorded by the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, in O.S.No.20/2003 and District Court, Thodupuzha, in A.S.No.32/2007.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the KSEB from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which consists of two buildings. According to the plaintiff, the property is cultivated with various yielding plants and he is having well demarcated boundaries. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the defendant is the true owner of the property and that the KSEB has permitted the plaintiff’s father to run a temporary tea shop in the area situated on the northern side of the Top Station Road in Madupetty at Nettimedu Junction on a ground rent basis. It is further contended that the plaintiff modified the building by constructing a permanent structure in violation of the agreement and the period of agreement expired on 04.06.2002. On behalf of plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked and Ext.C1 Commissioner Report was filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral or documentary evidence, found that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed and accordingly, decreed the suit by issuing a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and also from evicting the plaintiff forcibly from the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S.No.32/2007, which was also dismissed on 19.11.2007 and hence, the appeal. On 14.09.2015, this Court condoned the delay and admitted the appeal on the questions of law 1 and 2 in the appeal memorandum.

3. Heard, Sri.B.Pramod - learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.P.C.Chacko - learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the decree passed by the courts below is unsustainable inasmuch as the defendants have been permanently prohibited from evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. Inasmuch as no title evidencing the right of the plaintiff has been produced, at the best the plaintiff can claim only possessory right, the judgments impugned in the appeal are liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is further contended that the courts below failed to notice that the injunction cannot be granted against a true owner.

5. Per contra, Sri.P.C.Chacko - learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, pointed out that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the defendants, this appeal cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the possession of the plaintiff and his predecessor relates back to the year 1920 and therefore right, if any, on the appellants have been lost due to the advent of time. More over, the attempt made by the KSEB to injunct the respondent/plaintiff has been dismissed by Ext.A3 judgment and therefore, the concurrent findings of the courts below are not required to be interfered with.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the judgments of the courts below and the documents in this case.

7. In O.S.No.151/1995, which is instituted by the appellants herein seeking an injunction against the defendant/respondent herein, the respondent herein had filed a written statement in the above suit admitting to the entrustment of possession by the KSEB over the plaint schedule pro