PUJARI DYAVEGOWDA Vs. SHANKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for bare injunction. Their application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction against the defendants was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court by the impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court, consequently, rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the Appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. That in terms of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the year 1976, the land in question namely 'A' schedule property was granted to the plaintiffs. Hence from that date onwards, they are in possession. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the plea for injunction.

(3.) ON hearing both the counsel and examining the impugned order, I'm of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Appellate Court that calls for interference. Primarily, the Appellate Court relied on the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves while passing the impugned order. The statement of the plaintiffs that possession has been handed over to the Government and they have given up all the rights of the said land as stated, was even extracted in the impugned order. Under these circumstances, there is no error committed by the Appellate Court in rejecting the application for injunction.