RAMACHANDRAIAH, Vs. RANGAPPA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 14/2009, pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Madhugiri, which has been filed by the respondents herein, to pass a judgment and decree, declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other incidental reliefs. Written statement to the suit was filed by the defendants on 14.09.2009. Since, I.A. No. 2 had been filed to grant an order of temporary injunction along with the suit, the defendants opposed the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. The Trial Court by an order dated 04.02.2009 dismissed I.A. No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed M.A. No. 5/2010 in the District Court at Tumkur, which was assigned to the Fact Track Court -V at Madhugiri for consideration and decision. The said appeal having been allowed and an order of temporary injunction having been passed against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs, till the disposal of the suit, vide a judgment dated 05.12.2012, this writ petition has been filed by the defendants in the suit, to quash the said judgment and to restore the order dated 04.02.2010, passed on I.A. No. 2 in the suit by the Trial Court. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the Appellate Court without considering the materials on record, acting arbitrarily and unreasonably, has allowed the appeal in total disregard of well settled principles of law which govern the authority of an Appellate Court in the matter of examining an appeal filed against the order passed in the suit by the Trial Court refusing to grant an order of temporary injunction. He submitted that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and unsustainable.

(2.) SRI . G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand by taking me through the impugned judgment, supported the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court -V and sought upholding of impugned judgment. He submitted that no grounds have been made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India for interfering with the impugned judgment.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge having raised three points for consideration and having answered the same in the negative has dismissed I.A. No. 2 by an order dated 04.02.2010. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Judge raised a point for consideration that "whether the appellants/plaintiffs have made out ground that the lower Court has not properly exercised its discretion to grant Temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit". After noticing the property described in the schedule of the plaint and observing that none of the defendants have been possessing the lands on the boundaries other than the western side, in the land bearing Sy. No. 71/7 and rough sketch along with the written statement stating that the defendants have purchased the land in Sy. No. 71/8, but wrongly given the survey number as 71/7, it was held that the documents prima facie disclose that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the property and that the learned Trial Judge has misconstrued the averments in the written statement that the land purchased by them is giving wrong survey number and that prima facie case is not made out by the plaintiffs and thus, it was concluded that the prima facie case is not made out by the plaintiffs. Without arriving at a finding that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case, further observed that it is not possible to agree with the conclusion of the learned Trial Judge in the Court below that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs in view of the documents produced and it was concluded that the Trial Court failed to exercise its discretion on the basis of the materials on record and finding that the suit property is an agricultural land and has fruit bearing trees as contended by the appellants, it was held that, if the temporary injunction is not granted, greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs. As a result, the appeal was allowed vide a judgment dated 05.12.2012.