RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. RAI MURARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court who while dismissing the Second appeal filed by the respondent has given certain directions which according to the appellant could not have been given in the absence of any finding.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant, with the prayer to direct the defendant, respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court allowed the appeal. The High Court in the Second appeal as noted above dismissed the same but directed payment of certain amounts by the appellants to the respondent. The directions in this regard read as follows:

(3.) Subsequently, the figure of Rs.5,000/- was substituted with a figure of Rs.32,000/-. The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the suit for injunction was on the ground that plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant's wife on 19.6.1983. It was further observed that on the basis of the agreement the defendant's wife claimed to have been put in possession of the land and the right to property cannot be taken away by the plaintiff by way of injunction or otherwise. To say the least, this shows complete non application of mind.