PUTTAWWA Vs. DEVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 497/2010, being aggrieved by the order dated 30th May 2012 made in M.A. No. 12/2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Bhadravathi, setting aside the interim order made on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 497/2010 has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner filed O.S. No. 497/2010 inter alia contending that he purchased the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 29 -03 -2010 from one Krishnamurthy and others. Thereafter, on the basis of the said sale deed, mutation entry has been made. It is a vacant land and the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land from the date of purchase. However, the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession of the suit schedule property and also trying to dispossess him. In view of that, he filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, he also filed I.A. No. 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction.

(3.) SRI . B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is contrary to law. On the basis of the registered sale deed dated 29 -3 -2010 the plaintiff was put in possession of the property. The mutation entry shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The Trial Court on the basis of the records produced by the plaintiff held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property, if the temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable injury and hardship and hence granted an order of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. However, the Lower Appellate Court without considering the matter in proper perspective, only on the basis that the sale deed of the defendant is prior to the sale deed of the plaintiff and the vendor has no right to alienate the property in favour of the plaintiff, set aside the temporary injunction, which is contrary to law. The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and sought for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition.