SHILPA ASHOK Vs. PUTTANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 12/9/2022, passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 in O.S.No.2795/2022, on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court (NDPS) Bengaluru City (CCH 33) rejecting I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and allowing I.A.No.3.

(3.) The plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of temporary injunction in a suit filed for the relief of permanent injunction prayed the Court to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, particularly in respect of 'B' schedule property. Having perused the plaint, 'A' schedule property measures 40 feet x 56 feet and it is contended that the same is acquired by sale deed dtd. 8/5/2019. The plaintiff contended that land bearing Sy.No.17 and other survey numbers situated in Nagarbhavi village was notified for acquisition by the BDA in the year 1982 and the final notification was passed in 1987 and released the sites in favour of Vinayaka House Building Co-operative Society dtd. 30/6/2015. Thereafter, the sale deed is executed, particularly site bearing No.752/E allotted in favour of Smt. Harshalatha having purchased the same from the vendor, the plaintiff is in possession and the khatha has been transferred in BBMP. The defendant No.1, who is presently the member of the legislative council from Teachers Constituency, on 26/3/2022 with their henchmen and supporters, all of a sudden caused extensive damage on the backside of the schedule property by removing the shed constructed by the plaintiff measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 9 feet and caused extensive damage to the asbestos sheet roofing. The plaintiff approached the defendants and made enquiry, but defendant No.1 having political contact influenced the jurisdictional police and revenue officers and all of a sudden caused damage and dismantled the structure. In paragraph No.10, it is stated that portion encroached by defendant Nos.1 to 2 measures east to west 40 feet and north to south 9 feet, more fully described in the schedule 'B' and the same is marked as CDEF. The plaintiff, interalia sought for an order of injunction in respect of schedule 'B' property restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 or whomsoever claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession.