PREMA KUMARI N.R. Vs. MARIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order passed on I.A.No.7 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., wherein interim-injunction is sought restraining the defendant No.2 from putting up any construction in item No.12 of the suit schedule properties measuring 1 acre, 10 guntas and the same is dismissed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff would contend that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application, in coming to the conclusion that construction is put up in agricultural land and the defendants also categorically contend that construction is not put up for letting out the same for any commercial activities and the plaintiff also admitted the fact that the suit schedule property is in the possession of the defendants. The defendant No.2 contend that, he is putting up construction in item No.12 of the suit schedule properties to store areca nut and other agricultural produces. Hence, the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and this finding of the Trial Court is erroneous.