SHANKARA Vs. SIDDALINGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 18/12/2021 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in M.A.No. 31/2020, an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dtd. 10/3/2020 on I.A.No.I for temporary injunction filed in O.S. 71/2020 on the file of Additional II Civil Judge, Mysuru.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent being the plaintiff alleged interference by the petitioners with his possession of 7 guntas of land in S. No. 6/6 of Kuppaluru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The main plea of the respondent in his plaint is that though the land of the petitioners is situated towards west of his land in S. No. 6/6, i.e., the suit property, they obtained revenue records showing as if the suit property is situated within the boundaries of their land, and they tried to disturb his possession. The petitioners denied the plaint allegations and contended specifically that their father, Basavarajappa purchased 1.39 acres out of 4.16 acres in S. No. 6/A under a registered sale deed dtd. 4/6/1983, and later on there took place a partition among the members of the joint family. Based on the partition they obtained mutation of revenue records. They also pleaded that excluding 3 guntas of land, they obtained an order of conversion into non-agricultural purposes in respect of rest of their land. The petitioners denied the existence of respondent's land beside their land and stated about O.S.34/2020 filed by Mallappa, Mahadevappa and Mallikarjuna whose application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the court.

(3.) The trial court, after considering the documents produced by either side parties granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with respondent's possession of suit property. The main reasons that the trial court assigned for holding that the plaintiff/respondent was able to make out existence of three essential ingredients were that in the sale deed relied upon by the respondent, the western boundary was shown as the petitioners land; and the petitioners would still contend to be having possession of 1.39 acres of land although they had sold 3 guntas of land out of it. The trial court therefore found that prima facie case had been made out by the respondent as the actual pleas put forward by the parties required trial to be held.