SHARADA KRISHNAPA Vs. JHANSI R. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No. 6323/2015 has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and allowing I.A.2 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 thereby declining to grant an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.

(3.) Sri. Raghavendra. K., learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit site bearing No. 4 situated at Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is one of the sites carved out of Sy. No. 17 of Uttarahalli Village. Survey No. 17 was re -granted in favour of the father of one Venkatappa under Inams Abolition Act. Said Venkatappa, after the death of his father, executed Power of Attorney in favour of one Chikkaiah empowering him to develop the land bearing Sy. No. 17. Said Chikkaiah after developing the land formed layout and sites and he sold the suit site in favour of Nagarathnamma through a registered Sale deed dated 24.1.1981 and from the said Nagarathnamma, the plaintiff has purchased it. Since the date of purchase, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit site. The defendants having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property unnecessarily caused obstruction for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs suit site. The trial Court without considering the plea of the plaintiff declined to grant an order of injunction. He submits that the site claimed by the defendants is all together a different site from that of the suit site. It has nothing to do with the suit site measuring 40 x 30. The trial Court without considering this material aspect of the matter has committed an error in declining to grant an order of temporary injunction sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, he prays for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit site by the plaintiff.