MOHIDDIN KHAN Vs. K. ABDULLA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that father who is the respondent in this writ petition was the owner of the suit schedule property.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the case of the plaintiff to file suit before trial court is that respondent plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 42/14 seeking cancellation of Gift deed dated 10.11.2004 executed in favour of petitioner - defendant and he has also sought for other reliefs and along with the suit he has filed application I.A. No. 1 seeking temporary injunction from alienating the property bearing new assessment No. 277/A/266/A. After hearing the said application, the same was allowed and the trial court granted the interim injunction on 5.11.2014 as against the writ petitioner herein. The further facts also go to show that the writ petitioner herein preferred M.A. No. 19/14 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur and the said Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by its order dated 24.1.2015 and the order passed by the trial court was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order of the courts below, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner during the course of the argument made submission that though the gift deed was in the year 2004, but the suit was filed in the year 2014 i.e., after lapse of 10 years. Learned counsel submitted that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence it is his main contention that the main suit itself is barred by law of limitation, the trial court ought not to have considered interim application for grant of temporary order in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel made submission that being absolute owner under the gift deed, the writ petitioner entered into agreement of sale with the intending purchaser. Out of the money received from the intending purchaser under the agreement, he has paid the amount to his family members and to his father also by way of cheque and cash. Hence it is his contention that under these circumstances, the trial court is not correct in granting an interim order not to alienate the suit schedule property so also the first Appellate Court in confirming injunction order granted by the trial court. Hence the learned counsel submitted to set aside the orders of the courts below by allowing the Writ Petition.