Ill ms HIGH COURT 0FmK.iR}iATAl€.A arr BAHGALORE mm» 1-ms THE 71! ms? or AUGUST, ammas mm Hoxrnm un..ms1-rm 1:.s.1»2i*-%«%':1:'1!e,iV'T%.1 " ~ ' A' M3Am.«16( _: . 1 % fi A u.1r.A.xo.451._7_(2o"c-3 S/o hate Abdul Khadar, Aged about38y¢ars, National Muflomand D.No.10,Dr.RajLfum,3;*Road; " ~ Bangalore «'e$6at_>'§:)21;* t .. APPELLAIIT ' (common) (By Sri. sanmsh for M._I_3. 1~.i0lla;.Acivs.) -......n--7u-....- A. ..... a " iJl"'~'a'_t'~==-- ' .ab¢1:i' 62 Years. 'R]af: No.7, 1!! Cross, Chimiappa Layout, " V Eanwlorc ~---- 560 032. I: ' h"\.' ' Sri Syed Abdul Rashced @ Pchlwan Babu, S/o Sycd Abdul Gafler, Aged about 50 years, 2 No.68/2, Bythul Manzil, 133* 01053, Smyapuram, Bangame -- 560 005. (By SriJaya1m1nar S.PatJ'l, Sr. Counsel for __ .. A S:ri.G.Nandakumar Gr. V.J.Benjaznin, Advs. fo;_ 4.1) ' These Misocllancous First 43 Rule 1(1') of cm, against the oxtiar-,1.' dated 03.01 on LA No.1 in O.S.No.17202/$3004 ottthe fik:o5f.XIii'AddI.'t City Civil Judge, Bangalore, CC!-I~22,~.. VIA' Imdcr Order 39 Rules 1 as 2 CFC for TIL 2 -- These Misoellanedtm First been heard and reserved for orders, this day, the Court delivered the following;_- 1 """ 1. 'I'1:k -V' -- tivo by the 1" defendant against the cA:om_ "attic: dat£xi°U't§.D1.2008 passed on the appiications well as the 1" defendant under Oxder [piss 2 cpc, to restrain from interfering with the . and enjoyment of the suit schndulc plaintifi'/1" mspondent herein filed a suit in -~.C;.S.No.17_202/2004 secldng permanent injunction against the 1" defendant] appellant herein and raise one Syod Abdul -% _. 3 ._ Rasheed, the 2"' defiendaut (294 respondent in these gppcab).
Along with the suit, the plainfiff filed an app1ieaEi<§iz..d_du;zder
Order xxxzx Raises 1 56 2 cm seeking an oxx1cz¥"§f"
injunction. The court be-bw
order in flavour of the plaintifii d»:i.ez'xdaiitV:'fi3eii,e_:en
application under Curler ._
ex-parte interim order, and
under Order XXXIX 2 onieruof temporaxy
injunction in respect o§e.m§_' by him in the
written smtgmged iijvpgfipeiey bearing Khatha
£0.75 (on No.22/2] at
boundaries.
3. _ The both the applications filed by
1*’ defendant, and has aikrwed the
the plainfifl under Order XXXIX Ruies 1 Ge 2
gm zifind g elder of temporary injunction restrain’ mg’ the
firom interfering with the pLaintifi”s possession and
A ‘efeejejrmcnt of the suit schedule property. The appiicamn filed
‘ the 1″ defendant under Order XXXiX. Rules 1 & 2 has been
‘4 In this background, the 1″ defendant has filed these
.. 4 ..
two appeals, one directed against the grant of temporary
injunction in favour of the plaintifi’ and the other directed
against the rejection of his application for grant of
injunction. As both these appeals arise out of a
passed, they are heard together and are
common judgment.
4. The facts involved in the,case_ i in n11_tsheH,
the plaintiff Smt.C.Saroja
injunction in respect of property’ describing it
as 15 guntas of land at ra village,
Taluk, Bangalore, adjoining Sy.
No.22 botintied .ji53;.G°”°rnment Halls, West by Built
up ygtxtoperty ‘V of North by Road, and South by
mi”tt%ém:[t: . Wtshe contended that the suit schedule
I of the land granted to her father Late
2 _ her father was issued with a saguvali chit dated
A He passed away in the year 1974. Thezeafter, the
her brothers and sisters continued in possession of the
land. Tote} extent ofthe land measured is 2 acres 29 guntas.
.%
.. 7 ..
also asserted that his property was part of old Sy. No.22/2 and
measured 50’x6{)’. »_ _
6. The 1*’ defendant on his part produced:-~.:1§5.¢d
dated 07.07.1994 under which he
60′ pnoperty comprised in of I
Kavalbyrasandra village. The__ fqr 2
bcttexmcnt charges was also 2
7. The Trial Court at’ the materials on
record prime fotfifidv’ 33¢ hf the piainfifi Sri
Chm” n;eifaj$a” guntas of kharab Land
mtjomm.’ 9 g 22/ 1 otxavanayxasandm vn Lage
as was Order and the saguvali chit
.__It that the saguvaii chit being a public
‘ pmsumptivc value. On the other hand, though
that his property was fi)rme.d out of Sy.
No.é9.., not produce any records to substantiate the
sale clwd. produced by him did not refer to Sy.
IE32. In the circumstances, the Trial Court has found that the
s’
-8-
plaintifimade outaprimafaciecaseandthe balsnoe of
convenience. was in favour of grant of injuacfion to the
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the *.
contends that the court beiow fa1}ed’ __to V cots ~ L4
produced by the 1″ defendant in its 7/He
submits that the vendor of “-1}’
was the owner in possession No.2′.2]2
and the property in qI1est§onA’1″ defendant was
part of the said Iatld sy him under the
xegistemd order passed by this
Court to contend that one
K.M. against the sister of the 1”
the relief of permanent injunction
tige defiandanfl ttttt H ts therein fmm interfi:nng’ or
possession and enjoyment of the
2 _ The pmperty shown in the plaint schedule
the’. suit o.s.1~:o.1ees/1990 was 6 guntas of land
in Sy. No.22/’.2 (new Sy. No.75) situated at
Though the suit filed was dismissed, the
Regular First Appeal filed by K.M.I-iidayatllulia in RFA
is
.. 9 ..
No.989/2001 was allowed and the suit c.amc to be deexeed. On
the basis of the said judment in the Regular First it is
contended by the learned Catmsel for the fihe
sister of the 1″ respondent was ufl;1e ”
judgment and decxee finom interfering -:
1<.M. Hmayathuna rm pumhngcq gamut of
remaining lam: continued Vendor of
the plaintiff and in nztentioned by
K. M.Hidayathul]a_, V shown as land
belonging to contends that as
the If' flépmpcrty comprised in Sy.
No.22/ 2 .Mr'§n"':is,MV '3.' which was later on assigned
Ne.'1.i.27] measuring 50' x 60' on
'~ _ he owner absolutely entitled for pmtecfimn
of of the said property.
9; Counsel appearing for the respondent strongly
euppexiethe order passed by the trial’ Court.
I have heard the learned” Counsel for the perm” s and
perused the entire materials on record. The point that
EH9 for oonsidcmmn is:
…..}~0……
‘Whether the order under appeal sz.g0′”e1s
illegality or perversity so as to warrant ifs…
(hub appeal? 4’ V ‘
11. The mlier sought by the 1″ i%csp§)1Lr.;£eii’i._£s~ “
khamb land which was which was shown to bearing Sy.
No.13, 14, 15, 16, 22 fgf Village. The
documents pmdliocd ‘:i:?e1sg$on<1ent prima facie
disclose that he was gzantécl an
land situated adjoining
the Thc revenue moortis
name of Chmna' ppa, as his name
wa.si¢1'v;té27ed of rights in respect of the granted
»A cntrixcs continued even after he passed away
till the: year 1995. Though the plaintifi" chum" 3
partition between herself, her brothers and sisters,
3 of 15 guntas of the suit schedule property has fallen
.' share which is adjoining the above mentioned survey
""fiumber, no material is 111% before the Court to ahow that
after the partition the pmperty was assigned any number and
g
-11-
the same was entered in the name of the The
unnumbcmd land which was granted as part of is
not shown to have been assigned any t1uznbe_1f.–
trial Court has placed stmng I’cIia.IJlQ¢_01’1 etzeh
as sagnvali chit and the revenue _ tfda
schedule property was granted thtretlfof
plainfifi being the daughter of ~;’t.: :1)’ ap K to own
and possess the land. of tIH1eApLaintifi’ with
that of the defendant tn_ pmctuoett by
the defendazft1:;_.:i’i: it rightly found by the
final’ Qbt1i’t.” material to show that the
127/ 1 1 of Kavalbyrasandxa over
which _ 3 possessicm was part of Sy.
nit’ carved out of the said survey number.
07.07.1994 produced by the 1″ defendant
tto§s’*t1ot’tiét:;;td?t¢ Sy. No.22/2. Though the Counsel for the 1″
deti:’fi£§,a;i1.t-eqxnpellaxlt hemin piaces considerable xeiiance on the
~jt1dg.=1;e1ttrcnde1ed by this Court in RFA 530.989/2001 disposed
‘ tat: 25.01.2002, the saute does not help the appellant m as
” h as the said judgment pertains to Sy. No.22/2, new Sy.
… ..
No.75 of Kavalhyrasandm measuring 6 guntas. There is no link
established by the appellant to show that his property was part
of Sy. No.22/2, new Sy. No.75. Even in that sale drfiddated
07.07.1994, the schedule of the property and
shown do not indicate the existence of
any side. At any rate. tm .ilxtigmc..Vj;1tma1Ju.”””‘ .,deexeee.At§i’. ‘Int; AV
injunction granted in favour of I-Inlay’ tt:aat§ttuBat.’§:a_v.1Ad».agz§itis~t:V’the
sister of the p}.aintifi’ – 1″ t1ezein. puma’
man taken to draw ts’ interest of
the plajntifl”. However, by the trial’
Court. of trial that the case put
15% come to light. Thezcfoxe in my
view, iajuncfian in favour of the
‘~ _ any illcgaiity or pexversity.
the 1″ defendanth/appellant’s case is also
sak: deed and his assertion is that the
by him is part of Sy. No.22,/2. As the 1″
“:t:V'{}e:fe£t§7iant has rinsed’ the dispute rcgardm’ g the identity and
lecation ofthe phintifs pmperty, keeping in mind the facts and
nsta11ces ofthe case, I am of the View that though the 1”
-14..
is d1mcted’ to expedite the disposal ofthc suit and make an
cndcavour to dispose of the same within a period of
months 110132 the date of receipt of the copy of é
the eaxiy disposal of the suit.
KK