J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant was given the licence by the second defendant Municipality to run a flower shop. The plaintiff seems to have entered into an agreement with the second defendant on 17.02.1996, marked as Ex.A.1. As per this agreement, the plaintiff claims to have been put in possession of the shop and he had paid the consideration of nearly Rs.1,00,000/-. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to effect the change of name for the shop by making an application to the second defendant Municipality, in the name of the plaintiff. Till this process is completed, the plaintiff had agreed to pay the monthly rent to the second defendant Municipality in the name of the first defendant.

2. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the first defendant acted against the agreement and attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Left with no other alternative, the suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that the suit p