RAJANNA C. Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submits that while dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the Trial Court made it clear that the order of injunction will not come in the way of the defendants in taking subsidy from the competent authorities if they are entitled and the said interim injunction also will not come in the way of the defendants in taking the crop loan and discharging the same. The learned counsel submits that in view of the order passed by the Trial Court granting an order of injunction not to alienate, which has been entered in the revenue records i.e., in pahani, they could not proceed with taking any loan and getting any benefit and hence the same has to be modified.

(3.) The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 submits that if the defendants take the loan and do not repay the loan amount, it will be a burden on the plaintiff and the defendants cannot seek equity that they had spent the money for the development of the property by obtaining the loan. If the interest of the plaintiff is safeguarded, the entry made in the revenue records can be removed with such an undertaking.