VENKAT REDDY Vs. BUDENNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is defendant-1 in the trial Court and the plaintiff is respondent-1 in this Court. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiff applied for an order of temporary injunction in the trial Court. The trial Court did not grant its order of temporary injunction. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge, Raichur, granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In this revision, the petitioner (defendant-1) challenges the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge.

(2.) The plaintiff's case Is that the suit properties are owned by Sri Raghavendraswami Mutt and that he has been a tenant of the suit schedule properties for a number of years. He continued to be in possession of the lands even after March 1970 and had raised crops on the suit schedule lands. As defendant-1 began to interfere with his possession, he filed a suit for permanent, injunction.

(3.) The case of defendant-1 was that his mother Gangamma was a protected tenant of the suit schedule lands since 1950. After some years the suit lands were cultivated by Cholappa and Devendrappa for some time. Defendant-1 admitted that the plaintiff cultivated the suit lands as a lessee for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70. But the case of the first defendant was that after Ugadi in 1970, the suit lands were returned to him and the Mutt gave him the suit lands on lease for the year 1970-71. Defendant-1 paid an advance of Rupees 800/- to the Mutt and he has produced a receipt given by the Mutt. Defendant 1's case is that after March 1970, he cultivated the suit lands and raised crops thereon and thereafter, the plaintiff began interfering with his possession. According to defendant 1 after March, 1970, he is lawfully in possession of the suit schedule lands and, after March 1970 the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit lands and the plaintiff is not entitled to get an order of temporary injunction,