LOKAPPA Vs. NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a planitiff's appeal under Or. 41, R. 1 (r) of the CPC against the order passed by the Vacation District Judge dt. the 17th of May 1972 on I.A. No. 1 in O.S. No. 13 of 1972. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted the suit on the 22nd of April, 1972 in the Court of Vacation District Judge, Dharwar for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land, measuring an extent of 3 acres 37 guntas. On the same day, the appellants obtained an exparte order of injunction in their favour. The respondent thereafter, filed his objections and the matter was finally heard by the Vacation District Judge himself. The learned Vacaion District Judge passed an order on the 17th of May, 1972 and vacated the interim order of injunction in so far as it pertained to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas, which extent of land was claimed by the respondent defendant to be in his possession. The interim order of injunction was, therefore, confirmed only in respect of the remaining extent of 1 acre. Hence this miscellaneous first appeal by the plaintiffs.

(2.) Shri K. S. Savanur, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Vacation District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to make an interim order in the same. It may be noted here that the appellants themselves filed the suit before the Vacation Dist. Judge and moved him for grant of an interim order of injunction in their favour. They were also able to secure an interim order of injunction in their favour. It is when the learned Vacation Distriit Judge modified the interim order that the plaintiffs have challenged the said order in this Court. Though this contention raised by the appellants is inconsistent with the stand taken by them in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of the Vacation Disrict Judge, I will not be justified in overruling the contention raised by Shri Savanur on that ground, inasmuch as jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court by consent of parties.

(3.) The argument of Shri Savanur was constructed entirely on the language of sub-sec. (4) of S. 28 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964 which reads as follows :