MEHRUNNISSA Vs. ANTHONY RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, wherein, prayed the Court to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's lawful possession over the suit schedule property

(3.) The plaintiff in support of the application filed an affidavit contending that the property was purchased in the year 1988 vide Sale Deed dtd. 16/5/1988 measuring 30 x 40 feet and the same bearing No.8, Khatha No.171:125 situated at Doresanipalya, Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 076, by the previous owners Late Mr. Joseph and his children, who were minors at the time of executing the said dale deed and defendant No.1 is one of the son of the said Joseph.