SYED DAWOOD Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order dismissing the applications (I.A.Nos.II, III and IV filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC), wherein the plaintiffs have sought three prayers, namely (a) temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties, (b) restrain the defendants from alienating or creating any kind of charge over the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit, and (c) restrain the defendant No.6 from registering any kind of deeds or documents with respect to the suit schedule properties till disposal of I.A.No.III, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants - plaintiffs would submit that the properties originally belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiffs and after the demise of the grandfather of the plaintiffs, their father Khadar Sab inherited the properties. Khadar Sab died in 1997 and after the demise of Khadar Sab, the properties were inherited by the plaintiffs.