RUKMINI BAI Vs. MALLIKARJUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRD defendant in O.S. No. 14/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, has come up in these petitions impugning the order dated 7.8.2014 in MA. No. 22/2013 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Raichur ( itinerary court at Devadurga), wherein the lower appellate court while allowing the aforesaid appeal filed by the plaintiff in OS. No. 14/2013 set aside the order passed by the trial Court on IA. 4 in declining to grant temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff, consequently granted order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to these petitions are as under:

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner as well as contesting first respondent. On going through the pleadings and the orders impugned of both the courts below, it is seen that the agreement dated 30.1.2006 said to have executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 3,16,100/ -, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have received a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/ - from the plaintiff on various dates under cheques issued in their favour. It is also not in dispute that the agreement that is relied on by the plaintiff discloses that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him under the agreement. Unless, the said averment is disputed as incorrect and evidence to that effect is adduced by the contesting third defendant in the original suit, he cannot find fault with the finding of the lower appellate court in granting the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.