JAYARAMA REDDY, Vs. HANUMANTHA REDDY AND SMT. VIJAYLAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure -J dated 27.02.2012 in Misc. Appeal. No. 62/20.11, on the file of Principal District Judge at Raichur confirming the order dated 08.09.2011 in O.S. No. 53/2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Lingsugur sitting at Sindhanur. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents are the defendants. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction. I.A. No. 1 was filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction, which has been rejected by the Trial Court. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are their children. The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy. No. 4/A measuring 3 acres, 22 guntas of Arahalli -D village. According to them, the said land had fallen to the share of plaintiff No. 1. It is contended that plaintiff No. 1 was the Kartha of the family and after the death of Laxmireddy, the defendants took the plaintiffs to the Sub -Registrar's Office and defendant No. 2 managed to get the sale deed in the year 2008.

(2.) THE contention of the plaintiffs is that the sale deed has been got executed by exercise of fraud and the Trial Court has not adverted to these aspects in detail. The Trial Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case for grant of relief in the suit. It has therefore rejected the application. The first Appellate Court has again reconsidered the matter and has confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any error in the impugned orders. In my view, the courts below are justified in not granting the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs having regard to the sale deed referred to above. There is no merit in these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.