THIMAPPA BASAPPA DODDAYANKANNAVAR Vs. KRISHNAPPA GANGADHARAPPA NAIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. S. Keshava Iyengar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Manjula Devi T. M. holding brief for Sri F. V. Patil.

(2.) THIS revision petition arises from the judgment and order 13-10-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Ranebennur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20/95 allowing the defendant's appeal and setting aside the judgment and order dt. 17-7-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hirekerur, on I. A. I. filed in O. S. No. 165/95.

(3.) THE facts of the case in brief are, that the above suit was filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as well as from interfering with plaintiff's right to lift water from the well situated in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff alleged that there has been an agreement of sale of suit schedule property with two bore-wells vide agreement dt. 5-1-1991 whereunder the defendant had agreed to transfer, by sale, the said property for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,000. 00 and in pursuance thereof, the plaintiff/revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 as advance and the defendant/respondent, after having received the sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 which was paid as advance, handed over the possession of the suit property along with two borewells to the plaintiff/revision petitioner. It was agreed that the plaintiff after repaying outstanding loans, he has to obtain the clearance certificate from the State Bank of India and the defendant would receive the balance from the plaintiff on or before 31-5-1996 and get the sale-deed registered. The other terms of the agreement are not very necessary and according to the plaintiff/revision petitioner, the plaintiff had got the possession of the suit property and raised khariff and rabi crops etc. According to the plaintiff, he had himself discharged the defendant's loan. But the defendant did not executed the sale-deed inspite of notice being issued to him. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant, on 18-4-1995 when the plaintiff was carrying out the agricultural operations in the suit schedule property, tried to interfere illegally with the plaintiff's lawful possession. So, plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. After filing the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for grant of temporary injunction as well vide Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC and prayed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men or attorneys from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant filed his written statement as well as objections to I. A. I. that is to interim relief application. The trial Court after considering the material on record, opined that the plaintiff has proved the prima facie case and possession with reference to the suit property and balance of convenience was in his favour and so it opined that it was necessary to protect the plaintiff/revision petitioner's lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Having opined as above, the trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendant or his men, attorneys, power of attorneys, agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with irrigation set attached to the suit schedule property.