BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR
IA No.  427 of 2011
In
O S. No. 64 of 2011.
			
Petitioners/Plaintiffs		  :	Mr. Latheef and Another.

Respondents/Defendants  	  :	Mr. Jose Sebastian & 
                                                                Another 
Objection to the temporary INJUNCTION APPLICATION (I.A. No 427of 2011) most respectfully submitted by the Counsel for the defendants on behalf of the defendants

All statements in the injunction application as well as the plaint are false and hence hereby specifically denied except to the extent of specific admissions if any made here under.

1.	 The injunction application (I.A 427of 2011) filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law or on facts.

2.	The 2nd plaintiff has no authority to file this suit. The plaintiff’s has come before this Hon’ble Court with most unclean hands and by making willful suppression of material facts.

3.	 The averments in the Para 2 is not true, hence it is denied .There is no plaint ‘B’ scheduled pathway, the plaint ‘B’ scheduled pathway is an imaginary one. The schedule of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is not clear. 

4.	 The averments in the Para 6 is false, hence it is denied. There is no pathway described in Para 6 that is an imaginary one.

5.	 The averments in the Para 7 pathway is false, hence it is denied. The averments in the Para 7 that ‘….B scheduled pathway electric posts were installed for drawing electric line to plaint A scheduled property…..’ is not correct. Actually the electric post installed through the defendant’s property and not through the pathway. The consent was given to install electric post by the father of 1st defendant’s through the property of defendant’s, but  not allowed to use as pathway. The plaintiffs were not using the plaint B scheduled property not as a pathway. There is no pathway in existence.

6.	 The averments in the Para 8 ‘that plaintiff’s have got right over the plaint B scheduled property ‘is utter false, hence it is denied. The sale deed number 873 dated 5-3-01 of Anchal SRO was executed by one Poulose in favour of first plaintiff. The executants Poulose has no right over the plaint B scheduled property owned by the defendant’s jointly. The said Poulose have no right to sell others property.
 
7.	 The averments in the Para 9 is not correct. The averments that ‘the defendant’s had constructed a new pathway 3 weeks back through the eastern side of the property of the defendant’s’ are false hence it is denied. Southern side of the plaintiff property is paddy filed. NADAVARAMBU is used as a pathway by the plaintiff’s. 

8.	The averments in the Para 10 is not true, hence it is denied. There is no B scheduled pathway. There was no action taken by the defendant’s on 11-2-2011 with a malafide intention to encroach the plaint B scheduled property. There is no plaint B scheduled pathway in existence. The plaint B scheduled imaginary ‘pathway’ is a part of defendant’s property and they are possessing and enjoying the same without any interruption. The plaintiff’s has no right over the property.

9.	 The real fact is that the defendants are fully depending on agriculture for their livelihood and they have planted rubber trees in the defendant’s property and they are waiting for the yield since last 6 years. After one year the rubber trees will be ready for tapping and they will get income from these rubbers. This plaintiff’s had purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property in low price for the reason that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property having only NADAVARAMBU as pathway. Now the plaintiff with the help of real estate mafiya want to sell the property with high price .so they are trying to grab pathway through defendant’s property.
   
10.	 If temporary injunction is granted the defendants will sustain irreparable injury and hardship. The balance of convenience is in favour of the defendants and in not granting temporary injunction. The attempt of the plaintiff is to get a temporary injunction and to trespass into the defendant’s property and disturb the peaceful life of defendant.

11.	 The plaintiffs have no cause of action. Likewise the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant. At the same time the plaintiff’s have no case that they have got a prema-facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour. If an order of injunction is granted that will cause irreparable loss hard ship and injury to defendants.
Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss I A No 427/2011 with the cost of this defendant.
What all facts stated above are true and correct to my knowledge information and belief.
Dated this the 4th day of March 2011

                   Counsel fOR THE RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS   

	
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR

IA No.  427 of 2011
In
O S. No. 64 of 2011.

			
Petitioners/Plaintiffs:  Mr. latheef and another.
			
                                 And 

Respondents/Defendants: Mr. Jose Sebastian &                   another 

Objection to the temporary INJUNCTION APPLICATION (I.A. No 427of 2011) most respectfully submitted by the Counsel for the defendants on behalf of the defendants

		Counsel for the defendants