C Thangavelamma vs Gajalakshmi on 27 March, 2008

BEFORE': Q A' % % _  
Tl-IE HOBPBLE MR,J:Jsr1CE%;{;RAM,aizxf{A}V 1  
M.1?.A.No.514 1 gggm.    

BQIEQEE

cwmuanvnmmm
mwznns,  ,_  

w/0 wrn R.cHoKsm1;zNm;M§  4.  V:
R/0110.15,IN..R;,S.l€i);4;'2f:2'.    
44/3,sARAKmv1Lma~EV    ~  '
BANG<ALORE_78.,_ =:;,__,  '  .. APPELLANT

(By S:-i}{Smt_ :.  %AL*~s(;'ma% B snsnmvnaa aowm & A18 3

oaanuxanfiu ._   "
w,to;jM;L..Knsmw._ xv
40._YE'AR8. " '

.  * R/G No; 955, 1 PHASE"
».1;P.NAc_sAR.  

  -rs_   mponnms-rue)

"(:ay"'3r1/s':u'£Ij: ';_V 'JISHWANATH, ADV. - nor mmsmsrn
  . 2  nun

 MFA IS FILED U/O 43 R Hr) OF CFC AGAINST THE ORDER

 ."}..'.T§';D 16-..§.Q!10'. PASSED 0!! LA.  1 1!! 0,8...  409412001 ON THE

'  WEI.-E_;OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BAHGALORE (CCH-16],

  ;$l_:L-QWINC3 IA NO. 1 FILED U10 39 R 1 it 9 OF CPC SEEKRH
é  TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY. COURT
DELIVERED "THE FOLLOWING:

/(CL- i %
X?

' \



Iunnltflum
L'........£...'L'....'&...£..£!......'!:.

The appellant] defendant  haa..    "     

o.s.4e%,I2e-31 by em la-;9..":*-'..4-,4-';:;~~ 

(ccH.16; rumgaiom  _.i.'.A.'I§?AO;i'~  by the
pnainmr under omer 39  restraining
the   


igvgnufili',  Ilrnlni-Iii' in L
the afispiuth  suit acheciuic property 'nearing
No.19,  ..HoA.'-44V}i.V' situated at Sarakki village.

   East to West 15 feet and mm to

     half mm of asbestos sheet

i'fiaTJ_fI':':d_=i'ifi_nii%. The '*""*i*::i'.'.",'r~s'fi#:dmt is s'.'at..-:1 ta he-.'..-e

  z  the-sam e from one S.V.Ki'iahna" Reddy and his

 K.Vijaya Kumar under negistemd sale deed dated

VA  = «€15/6/1998. Since then she is in peaocml possession of



over the suit schoduie proper-tar and the  

the owner of the adjacent     

suit property but appellant is   Q.

fa-ops-fly is ate-..*.-.d'..*ng  ..!=.~.~.    and
she has obtained   aamxtim has
been obtaixygd  g1g¢'¢,,.  hmk:; gar  for raising
  itjmg  case of the

  t1o,usj2oo1 at 4.30 13.111.

appeflfinti_fi'"'e*:iiant»  1.:.h..e rez_1I,m1dut1t{plaintiif

whiVl_c_ worlsing. Vin iaaid  'iii -"uampm-d to

    zThorefo:'e', she filed a suit for beer injunction

  J.  the suit the plaimrlfl'/mapondent herein

  1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and :2 are for

  me de."e.".n-iants rm»:-.. mt....-..__g with the

Ieapondenfls peaoefitl  anti

   _.;§enjoyment of suit schedule property. After appearance of

the appellant] defendant and hearing them, the trial Court

ail.-rs-.'fi the -.-raid LA:  injunction in favour of the



support of her case, the     

number of documents like title tieegifs, '.

sanctioned plan to etlze

 has not  deeue1em'_'At9vVvf%gnow that

ii' istr E'uefi.'ing£t..'3e

uvvuur 1 hm 'fi;'}1.I61"dI.3',"' _.  _

statement of  ti"  cannot' be
treated me:  Tge:%egtm, title and interest
over   The averments made by

f_h.e  afiidavit med in support of

I.'

th' "ppiiceitiu-nV'ani1'«_ *£:.*r-4:5 avm-me-nt.s %e in ha p;eu..'-.*t'*t,

 ~--t'acie case in her favour, the balance of

 R also lies mom in favour of the

 ,=,.1la.=.i..?-.iV'."fi'f-..{.1vt.I--..t:2':11:= Tnetefeze,    has rightly

._A..!.fl' 3..

 aiititved the LA. flied   respoiideifpiaimus In

V.   M  injunction restraining the appellant/defendant

fmm interfering with the plaintiffs/respondent's

possession of the suit schedule property as pmyed for.

(Q. ,

3. F-ti:-“irg the ‘pfi1″”i€1’fiTx’W of this app-ual,..%,}£ of “11-§§”n*

i-flnflvfllng.

produced some documents in support of but \

some are yet to be proved ‘.

appellant ought to have

Com’! below, the

piainiii1″iroopor1dofit iv”‘t.fo.*r’m”:a %- mm”-° in

her favouf “‘§¢.3{‘9h-“.3 ‘3§31’..<_".a.vv"1@ ;'°f= " also lies in her
favour, I doiiot __ to interfere with the

order '

4. ” 1.. d1___aood.= Howovor,

__ __ _I3….._…

the Sflii is pcllmng fi1’i”1t’:e ‘”””mJu1,

– Com’lA: is~ to dispoae of the suit within six

date of receipt of a copy of this andcr.

Sd/’-

iudqe