S. RAMAIAH, S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, S. SIDDAPPA, S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, S. NANJAPPA, S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH Vs. KENDRIYA UPADHAYARA SANGHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs have filed these two appeals questioning a common order passed on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4, whereby and whereunder, two applications filed seeking temporary injunction orders, restraining the Defendants from alienating the suit properties and from changing the nature of suit properties, pending disposal of the suit was dismissed. The suit filed is for passing a judgment and decree directing the Defendants to re -deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties to the Plaintiffs and for incidental reliefs. The plaint schedule shows five items of agricultural lands in Sy, Nos. 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/7 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwantapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs entered into agreements of sale dated 19,11,1981, 21.12.1981 and 25.3.1982 with the 1st Defendant. They also executed a general power of attorney in favour of the first Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim that the agreements for the intended purpose did not materialise and there is frustration of contract. According to the Plaintiffs, they cancelled the power of attorney and being the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties are entitled to the redelivery of the same.

(3.) IN the statement of objections filed, Defendant 1 has stated that it has parted with the possession of the suit properties in favour of the alltottes by executing teasecumhsaie agreements and subsequently possession certificate(s) were also issued and that the allottes have become owners by virtue of their enjoyment of the property after the lease period and hence, there is no scope for alienation or altering of the properties by it. It was pointed out that, suit properties shown to be agricultural lands as on the date of filing of the suit, had ceased to be agricultural lands, since layout of sites was formed and possession of the sites was delivered to the allottees right from 1990 and the suit filed in the year 2010 is barred by limitation and also not maintainable, besides being devoid of merit. It was submitted that 27 sites in Sy. Nos. 1/5 and 1/7 is the subject matter of consideration in RFA 671/05 and hence, the suit cannot We in respect of the properties in Sy. Nos. 1/5 and 1/7. It was stated that the suit has no cause of action and is untenable.