KIOCL LTD Vs. U RAMADAS ACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that on 8/3/2008, the defendants demolished the portion of eastern compound wall as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint and it is the contention of the defendants in the written statement that they are in possession of Sy.No.83/P of the property and the defendants also contended that the plaintiff has illegally cut the compound wall lying between Sy.No.102/5B3 and Sy.No.83/P of Marakada village and the plaintiff sought for the relief of prohibitory injunction against the defendants and the defendants also filed counter claim for the relief of perpetual injunction as against the plaintiff and defendants also by way of counter claim sought for the relief of mandatory injunction against the plaintiff. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property and also comes to the conclusion that the defendants demolished the portion of eastern compound wall and also answered that the defendants are in possession of Sy.No.83/P and the Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of his property in Sy.No.102/5B3 and the defendants are in possession of their property in Sy.No.83/P. However while answering Issue No.4 the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff has illegally cut the compound wall lying between Sy.No.102/5B3 and 83/P of Marakada village and also comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction and the defendants are entitled for perpetual injunction but declined to grant the relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the defendants and hence, answered the issues partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative by granting an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff as well as the defendants in respect of their respective claims of their properties.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants have filed an appeal and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record formulated the point that whether the defendants are entitled for mandatory injunction as claimed in the counter claim since the Trial Court has rejected the same and also formulated the point that whether the judgment of the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of law and the said points are answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court does not requires any interference.