SHRIGOPAL Vs. FIVE STAR INDUSTRES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Mruthyunjaya S.Hallikeri, the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) The defendants no.1 to 4 in OS.no21/2008 are the appellants. The defendants 1 to 4 are aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction granted in the aforementioned suit, wherein the Court has restrained the defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The brief facts. The suit schedule property according to the appellants is purchased by the appellants under registered sale deed dtd. 22/3/2017. It is the further case that their vendor had purchased the property in the year 2012. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that the sale deed in favour of appellants is null and void and the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The plaintiff is claiming right and possession over the property under the deed executed by Mehaboobi. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that one Sangappa S/o Basalingappa Shattar was the tenant of the property for 99 years and Sangappa S/o Basalingappa Shattar has sold the tenancy in favour of Mehaboobi and Mehaboobi has transferred her right in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that Mehaboobi was the owner of the property and being the owner, she has transferred the property to the plaintiff. Sri. Mruthyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel would submit that Mehaboobi was not the owner of the property. She is only a lessee having purchased the leasehold right under previous lessee, could not have transferred the ownership to the plaintiff. He further submits that since Mehaboobi has sold the property on the assumption that she is the owner of the property, Mehaboobi's tenancy is forfeited and the plaintiff did not acquire any tenancy and possession over the property. He would further submit that the recital in the sale deed in favour of defendants no.1 to 4-appellants, reveals that the appellants are in possession of the property under the registered sale deed of 2017. Thus he would urged that the trial court could not have granted an injunction order which is impugned in this appeal.