M.)
This reguiar second appeal is filed under Section’
CPC against the judgment and decree dt. 1 l.O9.20Q;8″p.as.s:etl;__
in R.A.No. 10/ 1998 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (S],”l:}:}Il’.}. T’
and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. allowing the appeal and .
This appeal coming on for admission .’
delivered the following: T
JUI)GMElNT:.” >
Heard the learn.ed cotinsel The
appellants were the defendants’ in a suit
for bare in3’uncti*o1′;::£l.” r’es:poiid.eré’tLplaintiff had
contended, that granted land and that
subsequently; llll same and had
constructed portion of the same which
were assigned “by the local authority and the
defegnldants to stay in the said house under
perrnissivfe poccfupaticri. The defendants had occupied the
in the T1982 and 1988, respectiveiy. However.
started to interfere with the rest of the property,
‘V”V»”.”.over’~__wl1ic’ii’A–they had no right, the plaintiff had no alternative
‘ ‘file the suit seeking the relief of injunction. The suit
resisted on the ground that the defendants were
%
3
admittedly in occupation of the property and the defendants
proceeded on the plea that the land belonged to_.._t_he
Government and they were in occupation of the same ..u
only available ingress and egress to their’r__es–identiallthouses’. ”
through the suit property and of
granting injunction in favourfgdid noVt”ar”ise and
further the plaintiffs claim that owner of
the land, is belied ‘fact grant was the
subject matter .l’::lbei’ored the Assistant
Commissioneh an order of stay of
such grant and was produced before the
Court. The; trial the contentions, particularly
that lflthere’ “an adrhission by the plaintiff that the
defenld’ar1t.s in portions of the suit property and
further ci,;”cunistance that the order of grant made in
l the plaintiff, was stayed by the competent authority,
the plaintiff was not entitled to an order of
.f,v_inju_4n’c’tion in the absence of absolute title being shown and
admitted circumstance that the defendants were in fact
8
Us
possession against the Government and that such a
not tenable, since unless the title of the V’
admitted. it was not possible for the”defendant.l
adverse possession. It is in those circurnst.ances’._–.the ‘loVV–=,/herd”
appellate court has reversed the of
has held that the admitted*…_possess’iloiimizrip sollfar the
defendants occupying the on the suit
property not could only
continue in li5:§o’15erty and till such
time, other appellants. the defendants
cannot interfere extent of the suit property
and cannotqcapusel’ damage as was complained of
ldecreedllllthe suit. It is that, which is in
Z ., V challengeiiri yxthifst appeal.
As seen from the above circumstances, there are no
ll”l».l_’*suhstantiai’jquestions of law that would arise. T he findings
ll”._are’l..:Vclear findings of fact. There is no infirmity in the
it s
reasoning of ihe appellate court. Therefore the
rejected.
Pmg/