M. KRISHNAPPA Vs. K.T. SRINIVAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Controversy in this appeal revolves around grant of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs by allowing I.A. No. 1 and restraining defendants 1, 8, 10 to 17, their agents, servants or anybody on their behalf claiming through them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by plaintiffs and directing them not to put up any construction over suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. These defendants have also been directed not to put up any permanent structure in the suit property till further orders. 17th defendant being aggrieved by said order has preferred present appeal. Factual matrix in brief leading to filing of this appeal can be crystallized as under:

(2.) On service of suit summons defendants 4 and 6 appeared before Trial Court and filed their written statement denying averments made in the plaint. They specifically contended that subsequent to execution of sale agreement dated 27-1-1991 plaintiffs had also executed an agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney on 15-10-1992 and these two documents came into existence on the same day. They also contended that they have paid necessary conversion charges to the jurisdictional Revenue Authorities including betterment charges for conversion of suit property from agricultural to non-agricultural - residential purposes. They also further pleaded that as per registered agreement of sale deed dated 15-10-1992, plaintiffs have received full sale consideration from defendants 1 to 16. They claimed to have taken possession of suit property from plaintiffs. They also specifically contended that agreement of sale dated 15-10-1992 and General Power of Attorney of even date are two contemporaneous documents having came into existence on the same day and Power of Attorney executed by plaintiffs is an agency coupled with interest. Hence, on these grounds and as pleaded in the written statement, they sought for dismissal of suit. They adopted the written statement as objections to I.A. No. 1.

(3.) 17th defendant who is a subsequent purchaser and who is appellant in this appeal had also appeared on suit summons being served and has filed his written statement denying averments made in the plaint and contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It was contended that agreement of sale dated 15-10-1992 and Power of Attorney of even date has been duly executed by plaintiffs in favour of 1st defendant and by virtue of said authority he along with defendants 2 to 16, had executed a sale deed dated 22-5-2003 in his favour and as such, revocation of Power of Attorney subsequently on 22-2-2004 would have no effect on sale transaction entered into between defendants 1 to 16 on one hand and 17th defendant on the other hand. Hence, for reasons pleaded in his written statement, 17th defendant sought for dismissal of suit. Defendants also filed a memo that written statement filed by them be construed as objections to application I.A. No. 1 filed by plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction.