The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.02.2009, passed in E.A.No.350 of 2005 in O.S.No.205 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
2. The revision petitioners had laid the suit against the respondents, in O.S.No.205 of 2003, for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the subject matter and it is seen that the respondents having entered appearance in the abovesaid suit through their counsel and also submitting to the decree in favour of the revision petitioners by filing a memo, accordingly, the Court below had also passed the decree in favour of the revision petitioners as prayed for in the abovesaid suit. The revision petitioners, in the abovesaid suit, prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter. It is, thus, noted that the abovesaid suit had ended in a decree in favour of the revision petitioners.
3. Alleging that despite the grant of injunction in favour of the revision petitioners in the abovesaid suit, dated 12.09.2003, complaining that the first respondent, his brother K.Velu and their men N.Kamatchinathan, son of http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Natarajan, had threatened their farm servant Murugan not to do any agricultural work in the subject matter and also had threatened their Tractor driver Mariappan not to plough the land concerning the subject matter with the Tractor and also challenged that if Mariappan proceed to plough the land, he would be put to death at their hands and accordingly, complaining that despite the decree passed in their favour, as the respondents had interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter by flouting the decree passed by the Court below, it is case of the revision petitioners that they had lodged a Police complaint against the abovesaid persons, whom had caused unlawful interference and the Police had also, after enquiry, warned the abovesaid persons not to obstruct the revision petitioners' enjoyment of the subject matter and also advised the revision petitioners to approach the Civil Court concerned for further directions and inasmuch as the respondents and their men are hell-bent upon to cause interference with their possession and enjoyment of the subject matter unlawfully in defiance of the decree granted in favour of the revision petitioners in the suit as abovesaid, accordingly, seeking necessary Police protection and bandobast for their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter by giving a direction to the Inspector of Police, Kadayam, it is noted that the revision petitioners had preferred E.A.No.350 of 2005.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. The abovesaid application preferred by the revision petitioners had been resisted by the respondents contending that the revision petitioners had obtained the decree in O.S.No.205 of 2003 fraudulently and the respondents had not entered appearance through Advocate and preferred any memo submitting to the decree and according to the respondents, the abovesaid decree had been obtained by the revision petitioners by causing impersonation and accordingly, the case of the respondents is that the decree passed in O.S.No.205 of 2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and further, it is also contended by the respondents that the first respondent's brother, namely, Velu had also preferred O.S.No.183 of 2005 concerning the subject matter and suppressing the same, the revision petitioners had preferred the application and furthermore, according to the respondents, they had preferred O.S.No.336 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, for the relief of declaration that the decree obtained by the revision petitioners in the abovesaid suit is null and void and also for the relief of permanent injunction against the revision petitioners as regards the subject matter and also disputed that they had caused interference to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioners as putforth and also disputed the lodging of the criminal complaint with the Police by the revision petitioners and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application of the revision petitioners.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
5. Based on the materials placed on record, the Court below though holding that the abovesaid application levied by the revision petitioners is legally maintainable, however, determining that the revision petitioners had not established their cause of interference by the respondents by examining their farm servant as well as the Tractor driver as alleged in the application and accordingly, not accepting the evidence adduced by the second revision petitioner examined as P.W.1, resultantly, proceeded to dismiss the abovesaid application preferred by the revision petitioners. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
6. It is not in dispute that the suit in O.S.No.205 of 2003 preferred by the revision petitioners against the respondents, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, ended in a decree in favour of the revision petitioners, on 12.09.2003. Now, according to the respondents, they had preferred the suit in O.S.No.336 of 2005 against the revision petitioners for the relief of declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.205 of 2003 is null and void and also for the relief of permanent injunction in their favour. As could be seen from the records placed on record, the abovesaid suit, after contest, had come to be dismissed by the concerned Court on 14.06.2007. Furthermore, the appeal preferred by the respondents in A.S.No.48 of 2007 http://www.judis.nic.in 6 against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.336 of 2005 had also come to be dismissed on 06.08.2008. Furthermore, the case of the respondents that their brother Velu had preferred a suit in O.S.No.183 of 2005 concerning the subject matter against the revision petitioners is also found to have been dismissed on 21.03.2006 and the first appeal preferred by the said Velu in A.S.No.54 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram, had also come to be dismissed on 30.08.2006. No doubt, as could be seen from the materials placed on record, the said Velu had preferred second appeal, in S.A.(MD) No.1325 of 2006, on the file of this Court, as against the dismissal of his appeal in A.S.No.54 of 2006, however, it is noted that no stay order had been obtained by the said Velu in the second appeal and therefore, it is seen that the mere pendency of the second appeal would not in any manner operate as stay of the decree obtained by the revision petitioners in O.S.No.205 of 2003 as above noted. As regards the dismissal of their appeal in A.S.No.48 of 2007 preferred by the respondents, though they would claim that they had preferred the second appeal, however, with reference to the same, there is no material forthcoming on their side.
7. In the light of the abovesaid developments, when it is noted that all the challenges putforth against the passing of the decree in favour of the revision petitioners in O.S.No.205 of 2003 had ended in failure and though the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 said second appeal in S.A.(MD) No.1325 of 2006 is stated to be pending, however, when no stay order has been granted by this Court as against the operation of the decree in O.S.No.205 of 2003, it is seen that the respondents would not be entitled to disturb the revision petitioners' possession and enjoyment of the subject matter in any manner and on the other hand, inasmuch as, according to the revision petitioners, the respondents and their men had caused interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioners by holding a threat to their farm servant and Tractor driver with dire consequences in the event of their continuance of the cultivation activities in the subject matter on behalf of the revision petitioners, accordingly, it is seen that the revision petitioners have been necessitated to lay the application seeking for police protection for their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter.
8. The parties had adduced evidence as regards their respective claims in the subject matter before the Court below and as above noted, the Court below had dismissed the application of the revision petitioners on the footing that the revision petitioners had failed to sustain their case by examining their farm servant and Tractor driver in support of their contentions and accordingly, refused to provide police protection as prayed for. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
9. Considering the materials placed on record, when it is noted that the decree obtained by the revision petitioners in O.S.No.205 of 2003 has become final, in such view of the matter, as rightly putforth by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the respondents and their men would not be entitled to disturb their possession and enjoyment of the subject matter and as could be seen from the evidence adduced by the first respondent in the matter, when he would go to depose that he and his brothers are objecting to the revision petitioners' enjoyment of the subject matter, on that basis alone, it is seen that as rightly argued, the Court below should have accepted the revision petitioners' case and provided necessary police protection to the revision petitioners for the beneficial enjoyment of their subject matter as decreed in their favour. As rightly putforth by the revision petitioners' counsel, when their servants had been engaged in the cultivation of the subject matter on behalf of the revision petitioners and when particularly the first respondent has deposed that he and his brothers have objection in the enjoyment of the subject matter by the revision petitioners, despite the decree passed against them in the suit, from the abovesaid background, it could be seen that the revision petitioners have established the interference caused by the respondents in the enjoyment of the subject matter by them and the same has also been buttressed by the revision petitioners by placing the police http://www.judis.nic.in 9 complaint lodged against the respondents and their men with reference to the same. Therefore, as rightly putforth, when all the endeavours made by the respondents to challenge the decree obtained by the revision petitioners in O.S.No.205 of 2003 had ended in failure and thereby, the respondents are fully aware that the decree passed against them in O.S.No.205 of 2003 had become final and they are bound to obey the dictate of the decree passed against them and on the other hand, when they had exposed their mind and determination in objecting the revision petitioners' enjoyment of the subject matter, that by itself, would be sufficient to hold that, as claimed by the revision petitioners, the respondents and their men had flouted the decree passed in the suit in favour of the revision petitioners and thereby, caused interference in their enjoyment and in such view of the matter, when the Court below had passed the decree in favour of the revision petitioners, the Court should take all endeavours to ensure that its decree is fully honoured and executed and on the other hand, it should not allow the respondents to flout its decree by holding that the revision petitioners had not sustained their case by examining their servants with reference to the case putforth by them, particularly when the servants are found to be engaged in the cultivation of the subject matter on behalf of the revision petitioners and furthermore, when the respondents have also openly declared that they are having objections in the revision petitioners' possession and enjoyment of the subject matter, http://www.judis.nic.in 10 despite the decree passed against them in the suit, in my considered opinion, the materials placed on record would be sufficient to uphold the revision petitioners' case and in such view of the matter, the reasonings and conclusions of the Court below in rejecting the revision petitioners' case on the footing that they had not sustained their case by examining their servants, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner and when from the conduct of the respondents and the other materials placed on record as well as the evidence of the second revision petitioner would go to clearly expose that the respondents are determined in causing interference to the possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioners of the subject matter, despite the decree passed against them in the suit, to meet the ends of justice and also to ensure that its decree is obeyed and not violated, the Court below should have ordered the application in favour of the revision petitioners.
10. It is seen that as rightly putforth by the revision petitioners' counsel, despite their obtainment of the decree in O.S.No.205 of 2003, dated 12.09.2003, all along for several years, the respondents had been preventing the revision petitioners from enjoying the fruits of the decree one way or the other by way of laying frivolous litigations and even after the same had come to be disposed of against them, their attitude in defiance of the decree passed in the suit against them and their determination to cause interference to the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 revision petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter, in all, as putforth by the revision petitioners, they have made out justifiable and sufficient cause for seeing police protection and also established the need for the same by placing acceptable and reliable materials with reference to the same.
11. As regards the maintainability of the application, as above noted, even the Court below had upheld the maintainability of the application, but only dismissed the same on the footing that the revision petitioners had not sustained their case by examining their servants. However, when the revision petitioners are not required to examine their servants and from the materials placed on record, they have established the interference caused by the respondents, in such view of the matter, the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.
12. The counsel for the revision petitioners, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision in J.Rajagopalan vs. Uma Maheswari, reported in 2013 (3) MWN (Civil) 536. The principles of law outlined in the above cited decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. http://www.judis.nic.in 12
13. In conclusion, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs and the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.02.2009, passed in E.A.No.350 of 2005 in O.S.No.205 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, are set aside and the application preferred by the revision petitioners, in E.A.No.350 of 2005, is allowed. The Court below is directed to issue necessary communication to the Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, to provide necessary police protection and bandobast to the revision petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter as and when necessary, as per law, with necessary conditions as deemed fit and necessary by the Court below considering the facts and circumstances of the case.