PANKAJALAXMI MAHILA SAMAJA Vs. B A HANUMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

(3.) BY way of additional written statement, it was further contended that the original suit was filed for permanent injunction and during the pendency of the proceedings and pursuant to the disposal of the Miscellaneous Appeal in MA 202/1980 as on 24.1.1986 the plaintiff had sought to amend the plaint and the allegation, by way of amendment, to state that the defendant had put up a structure inspite of an order of injunction was denied as false. It was contended that the alleged shed is within the property of the defendant and that Site No.6 claimed by the plaintiff cannot be identified at all. The boundaries of the said property are vague and that there was no identifiable Site no.6 in the alleged Survey No.10 and it was claimed that the property described in the plaint schedule actually was within the boundaries of the property belonging to the defendant and that the defendant had put up a pucca construction. After the injunction order was vacated by the appellate court, classes are run by the defendant in the said building and further that even before the institution of the suit, the defendant had put up construction.