VENKATRAMANAIAH AND SRI VENKATARAMANAIAH Vs. SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA, HOTEL NARAYANAPPA AND THE SECRETARY, KENCHANAKUPPE GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of injunction granted by the trial Court and confirmed in the appeal by the First Appellate Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellants herein are defendant No. 1 and legal representatives of defendant No. 2, whereas respondents 2 and 3 herein are defendants 3 and 4 in the trial Court. The first respondent herein instituted a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described in the schedule to the plaint. It is the property No. 1/7 in Kaneshumari No. 7/193 measuring east to west 180 feet and north to south 140 feet with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff is the son of Yembralappa and Chikkavenkatamma and the suit property was that of his mother. She is said to have bequeathed her interest in the suit property to the plaintiff under a registered Will dated 21.2.1992. On the death of his mother, the plaintiff is enjoying possession of the suit property which includes a toilet, bathroom, cattle shed adjoining vacant space with fruit yielding trees on it. As there was an obstruction to his possession by the defendants, the suit for injunction was instituted.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint including the measurement, the boundaries and the total area for which the injunction was sought. It is their contention that they are in possession of the property in pursuance of the sale deed and contend that the plaintiff was given a country titled house east to west 48 feet, north to south 45 feet and the vacant site measuring east to west 63 feet and north to south 45 feet. The vacant site is to the west and the house is to the East. He also contend that on the northern side it is their property and only thereafter there is a road. In the circumstances the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) AT the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether the Courts below were justified in sustaining the case of the plaintiff on the basis of a Will as against the sale deed which was set up by the defendant in respect of an area measuring 120 feet by 80 feet which is encompassed in the suit schedule property, whereas it is claimed by the defendant under the sale deed which was produced?