A cleaver game by son and a father to take ill-advantage of an ex-parte decree. In year 1996, we purchased a property (in which we were tenant for 30 years). A another tenant adjacent to our property got an ex-parte decree passed in his favor against us where the court restricted us “not to raise a boundary wall in front of bathroom,” which is in the possession of that tenant. So, we never could raise boundary in our own property till now. This bathroom is our property and it is in our property, and that tenant still comes in our property to use that bathroom, and we are helpless. We cannot protect our property by making boundary wall and nor we can use restrict oppose that tenant to come in this bathroom.
Now, the very crooked game played by this tenant is: This tenant now purchased his tenanted property back in 2005 by the name of his son (defendant No. 1), so that he could still claim himself to be the tenant and could take the advantage of that ex-parte decree order, which he taken in the capacity of while he was tenant, and could use that bathroom which is in our property. That tenant is still in possession of this bathroom, and is not leaving this bathroom. We filed a fresh suit of temporary injunction back in 2010, against this tenant and also against his son. We have claimed that as son is now the owner after purchasing the tenancy of his father hence "that “he is not a tenant nor a landlord" and hence both that son (being a landlord) and father (being a family member in the property of son) have no right/claim whatsoever to interfere in our property. Son being the main respondent is silent, only father is contesting the case and claiming himself still be tenant and claiming that our temporary injunction order is barred with "res judicata" as an ex-parte decree of year 1997 still in his favor. How can "res judicata" apply here as the property in dispute is now different and also the parties in suit are different (previously parties were: That tenant and me, and now, the parties are: Me and that son, a owner of property).
Now, both son and father have appealed in the higher court against this temporary order which we got in year 2010 (that both, son and father, will not interfere in our property), and still they are coming to our property to use that bathroom. At the present time, that son (defendant No. 1) living with his wife and children are using that "bathroom in our property." This bathroom is no-where in his sale deed. He is using this bathroom again on the basis of that old ex-parte decree obtained his father while he was tenant" (father now lives somewhere else, with his another son).
My questions are:
1. Can that father still claim himself be as "tenant?" (if yes, then of whom?)
2. Is our stand correct/valid that: He is "not a tenant nor a landlord," rather a family member?
3. Does that "old ex-parte decree" in favor of that ex-tenant still valid?
4. Can that old "ex-parte decree" become "null and void by itself due to change in circumstance (as his tenancy right have extinguished, and so is the ex-parte decree obtained in the capacity of tenant.)"
5. As we have temporary injunction in our favor that both son and that father would not interfere in our property, so now can we take the police help to restrict them not to come in our property to use that bathroom?
6. Do you think both father and son are doing "contempt of court order" (as they are still coming in our property to use that bathroom)?
