M.Y.PUTTAPPA Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Mohana Chandra P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jai Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.

(2.) The appellants are defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.63/2020 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction in respect of 34 guntas of land including kharab of 4 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 of Machavalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, Chickballapur District. Along with the plaint, the respondent filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

(3.) After hearing both sides, by order dtd. 13/4/2022, the trial court dismissed I.A.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. For dismissing the said application, the trial court assigns the reasons that though the plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from Kasturi Rangachar through sale deed 31/7/2013, the revenue records still continue in the name of the vendor and the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands. The trial court is of the opinion that there is no proof with regard to specific allegation that the defendant undertook construction of the building towards Southern side of the suit property. To give this finding, the trial court further held that the Southern boundary of the suit property was shown as Gramatana land. If really the construction was undertaken in the southern portion of the suit property, the Southern boundary should have been shown as the plaintiff's remaining property. In this view, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Ultimately the trial court dismissed the application.