- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The dispute is around a piece of property in S.No.53/4, new S.No.53/9, to an extent of 5 cents and the construction put up on the said land. S.A.No.1581 of 2004 3. The contention of the appellant is that the Government land which was assigned to the mother of the plaintiff by the Government and enjoyed by her along with the family members was sold by the mother to first defendant on 24.01.2000. The sale deed is a sham and nominal document without any validity. Hence, the appellant has filed the suit in O.S.No.489 of 2002 seeking relief of permanent injunction, contending that though the patta was granted to his mother the 2nd defendant, the property was jointly enjoyed by him along with his mother and she is carrying on wet-grinder shop in the premises, he being in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property under the sale deed dated 31.10.2000, the first defendant should not interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. Both the Courts have held against the plaintiff/appellant. Though the appellant has lost his case, considering the possession being with the plaintiff/appellant the Appellate Court held that he cannot be evicted without due process of law.
(3.) Pending appeal, the first respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.83 of 2003 for recovery of possession against this appellant. The said suit was allowed by the trial Court. On appeal, the trial Court judgment and decree was confirmed.;