MUNIRAJU S/O GOPAL REDDY, VIMALAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH, PRASHANTH V. S/O LATE VENKATESH AND PRAMOD V. S/O LATE VENKATESH Vs. PANYAM CEMENTS AND MINERALS INDUSTRIES LTD. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND SALARPURIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. REP BY ITS MA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No. 3008/07 have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the trial court rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs for an order of injunction and to restrain the defendants from changing or altering the nature of the suit, schedule property. I.A. 1 and 5 were filed in this regard. The trial court dismissed both the I.As. property. I.A. 1 and 5 were filed in this regard. The trial court dismissed both the I.As.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court ought to have restrained the defendants from altering or changing the nature of suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit and the suit was filed by the appellants for declaration as well as for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property measuring 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 6/13 of Hongasandra village. Begur Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk. Further submission made is that the appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property and it is their further case that one Gurumurthappa. was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he executed a gift deed in favour of his sister Sunkamma in the year 1952 and after the death of Sunkamma. Abbaiah Reddy and Narayana Reddy succeeded to the suit property and they effected a partition between themselves and 15 guntas fell to the share of Abbaiah Reddy. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Abbaiah Reddy and therefore they have filed the suit for the aforesaid relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Stating that the defendants have started putting up pillars in the suit, schedule property, the appellants sought for the relief of temporary injunction as well as restraining the defendants from altering or changing the nature of the suit schedule property and the trial court ought to have allowed the said I.As. but instead, the trial court took into account the documents produced by the defendants and the case of the plaintiffs has not been properly appreciated. As such, the impugned order be set aside and the relief sought be granted.

(3.) HAVING thus heard both sides, in so far as the gift, deed upon which the plaintiffs' case rests is concerned, it is a matter for trial as to whether the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit property because submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the other L.Rs of Abbaiah Reddy were not brought on record and under these circumstances it is for the trial court to examine all these aspects. At the same time, the defendants have put up construction in the suit schedule property and the trial court has also made it clear that, it goes without saying that if any construction is put up over the suit schedule property, or any change or alteration takes place, the defendants and persons concerned shall bear the consequences and they shall not be entitled to claim any equitable relief in such an event, In view of the aforesaid observations of the trial court. I am of the view that the suit itself can be disposed of at the earliest by giving a direction to the trial court in this regard and hence I pass the following order.