SAMPANGIRAMAIAH Vs. VENKATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts are that on 13/9/1969 c. Narayanappa and his son-in-law c. M. Narayanappa jointly purchased land bearing S. No. 82/2a measuring 1. ac. 31 gs. situated at Kolar from gurappa and his children. C. Narayanappa and his son-in-law C. M. Narayanappa died in 1981 and 1984 respectively. Narayanappa has left behind him two sons Channakrishnappa and Sampangiramaiah. the latter being the petitioner and channakrishnappa is alive. The property was never partitioned amongst the joint owners. The respondent herein is the wife of channakrishnappa and she is living separately as she has been deserted by her husband. C. M. Narayanappa had left behind him a widow, daughter and sons who are not parties to this suit. C. M. Narayanappa and Sampangiramaiah filed O. S. 8/1979 for injunction against Venkatamma, estranged wife the present respondent who has been living away from her husband Channakrishnappa for restraining her from interfering with the possession of the land in dispute and the said suit was dismissed. The respondent got the khata of the land changed to her name which was questioned by the petitioner before the assistant Commissioner who set-aside the same and on appeal before the d. C. , the same was confirmed. However, the respondent filed a Writ petition which is pending before this court. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a suit for bare injunction against the petitioner and obtained exparte order of injunction. Subsequently, the trial Court confirmed that order and the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Hence this petition.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts have committed an error in confirming the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent restraining joint owners of the property which is not known to the law. He also further submitted that she has no right, title or interest over the property and the documents were produced by the respondent before the trial Court after the arguments concluded by both the parties and when the matter stood posted for orders, which is contrary to the relevant provisions of law. He also submitted that the revenue Courts have decided that the entries made in the revenue records is not in accordance with law. These facts were not taken into consideration by the Courts below. The respondent's husband is still alive and without he being impleaded as one of the party in the suit, the suit itself is not maintainable, etc.

(3.) IN reply to this argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that under oral partition of 1968, the respondent has been in possession of the property. Her husband has deserted her and the respondent is maintaining her family after constructing some tenements had let out 5 tenements to tenants and was collecting rents and she has been cultivating the agricultural property. She has also installed pipe-lines and electric connection is also taken in her name which substantiates her possession. Thus the possession of the respondent is settled possession. Therefore, she cannot be evicted by anyone without due process of law. He further submitted that the husband has not been looking after her and her children. If the injunction is vacated, she and her children would be thrown to streets which would result in miscarriage of justice and also cause hardship to the entire family. He further submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order under Section 115 CPC as against a concurrent finding given by the Courts below appreciating the factual aspect of the case. Therefore, he submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.