MUNIYAPPA Vs. GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant is directed against an order dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.8650/2012, whereunder application filed by appellant / plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking injunction to restrain defendant from interfering from alleged possession of plaintiff has been dismissed and application filed by defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking for vacating the ad interim exparte order of status quo has been allowed.

(2.) I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties namely Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for appellant / plaintiff and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Javahar Babu, for respondent / defendant. Perused the order under challenge as also documents appended to appeal memorandum as well as statement of objections.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for appellant that Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application of plaintiff and allowing the application filed by defendant for vacating order of status-quo and rejecting the application for injunction, inasmuch as revenue records relating to the property in question, which according to him is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.196 measuring 16 guntas and to evidence this fact revenue records has been produced and non-consideration of this vital document in proper perspective has resulted in erroneously dismissing the application. He would further contend that defendant has not produced the plan for construction of house issued by the competent authority and there are no other documents to establish that defendant has acquired right, title and interest in respect of property in question and as such there was no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff. He would also contend that under a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001, which came to be executed amongst sons of late Chowdappa and his wife, 16 guntas of land was allotted to appellant/ plaintiff and as such, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal seeking relief of temporary injunction and for setting aside the order of Trial Court vacating ad interim exparte order of status quo granted earlier. On these grounds he seeks for allowing the appeal by allowing the application for temporary injunction and setting aside the order of Trial Court vacating status-quo.