seeking permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed as per judgment and decree Ex.D.21. Similarly, the defendants have also produced Exs.D.22 to 24 to contend that the K.M.Narayanaswamy and Pillamma have filed similar suit in O.S.No.2423/2005 seeking declaration and injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the very same schedule property. It is stated that subsequent to recording of evidence, permission was sought to withdraw the suit , but the suit was dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/-. The permission sought by K.M.Narayanaswamy and Pillamma to file and maintain the suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2 was rejected. Under such circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that very same K.M.Narayanaswamy and Pillamma have sold the schedule property in his favour under Ex.P.1 will not confer any right over the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. When the schedule property was already alienated under the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, K.M.Narayanaswamy and Pillamma are no more the owners of the schedule property to execute the sale deed once again in favour of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.
