YALLAMMA, RAMAIAH AND ANANDAPPA Vs. RATHNAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the Judgment and Decree of the First appellate Court in R.A. No. 61/2008, granting injunction in favour of the respondents by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. The facts reveal that the suit property is Sy. No. 7: 4th Block, measuring 7 acres with the boundaries described in the schedule to the plaint. The respondents instituted the suit seeking the relief of declaration of their title over the suit property and injunction. The suit property was granted to one Chowdike Durgaiah under a contract grant. Chowdike Durgaiah died issueless and Chowdike Thippaiah i.e., the husband of the deceased original plaintiff was his brother. The other plaintiffs [the respondents herein] are the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff. It was their contention that on the death of Chowdike Durgaiah, Chowdike Thippaiah succeeded to suit schedule property and on his death, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. There was an obstruction to their possession and therefore they approached the trial Court, seeking the relief of declaration of their title and injunction. The appellants herein are the defendants and it is their contention that they are in possession of the suit property and the genealogy submitted by the plaintiffs is not true. It was also their contention that the plaintiffs are not the legal representatives of deceased Chowdike Durgaiah. They contend that Chowdike Durgaiah was the owner of the suit schedule property and since 20 years prior to the suit they are in exclusive possession of the same. On these grounds, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) AT the time of admission, the following substantial question of law is raised for consideration:

(3.) IT is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that genealogy produced by the plaintiffs at Ex. P3 is not proved and in the absence of any evidence to prove that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives, the question of granting injunction to protect the alleged lawful possession does not arise. He also submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court did not assign cogent reasons to grant a decree for injunction. In the absence of any evidence of the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of deceased Chowdike Durgaiah, he contends that no relief could be granted.