- (1.)HEARD Shri Satish G. M. , holding brief for Shri G. Ganesh Shenoy, for the revision-petitioner and Shri K. S. Savanur for the respondent.
(2.)THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 1993, delivered in M. A. No. 11 of 1993 (Smt. Lakshmidevamma v C. M. Narayana Reddy) from the judgment and order dated 22-4-1993, passed by the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , Gowribidanur, on LA. No. I, granting the temporary injunction. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Trial court, taking the view and recording the finding to the effect that in order to get the relief for injunction, plaintiff has to prove prima facie case, that is a case prima facie triable and that prima facie case did not mean prima facie title. He further opined in order to establish prima facie case, plaintiff has also to establish his possession on the date of the suit for injunction and in the matter of claiming temporary injunction the lower Appellate Court found that the survey which took place on 28-12-1990, reveal that the defendant had been in possession of the land in dispute, namely 24 guntas of land. He further observed that no doubt plaintiff had taken the plea that defendant has surrendered the land or given the land, after survey. He considered the circumstance that within three months of survey, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction and this was sufficient circumstance by itself to disbelieve the plaintiffs case that possession of encroached land was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff has prima facie and shown his possession. It held that defendant-respondent has been in possession of the disputed land. May be he is a trespasser, but even then the plaintiff is not entitled to get the injunction till he gets the possession of the land and the property trespassed by the trespasser and he held, therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to decree for temporary injunction.
(3.)FEELING aggrieved from that order, the revisionist has come up by revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.