BANGI THIPPANNA Vs. BAVIKATTI NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S. No. 872/2012 pending on the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Bellary have come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 28.11.2013 passed in M.A. No. 74/2013 on the file of the First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bellary.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the dispute in this proceedings is centered on the title and possession to the property bearing Sy. Nos. 783A, 783B and 1524/1 of Emmiganuru village of Bellary Taluk and District which all together measures to an extent of 4 acres. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit bearing O.S. No. 872/2012 is that the said land was purchased by the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 16.07.1970 from the grand father of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. It is their contention that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who have no manner of right, title and interest to the suit property, are trying to interfere with the possession and cultivation of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit in O.S. No. 872/2012 is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. In the said suit, it is also contended that taking advantage of the fact that the revenue entries of the aforesaid properties not being registered in the name of the plaintiffs pursuant to the sale deed dated 16.07.1970, the defendants effected partition of the said property in the year 1992 among themselves and subsequently got the katha of the suit property transferred in their name and by virtue of the said revenue entries, are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit two applications are filed in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3. I.A. No. 2 is filed seeking an order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third party on the strength of the revenue entries made in their name. I.A. No. 3 is filed for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs.

(3.) IT is seen that the order of temporary injunction on I.A. No. 3 is not passed exparte. It is subsequent to hearing the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and as well as the defendants. The said order was passed on 06.09.2013 the subsequently, confirmed by the lower appellate Court in M.A. No. 74/2013. While doing so, both the Courts below have rightly observed that the title to the property continues with the plaintiffs in the original suit and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property except for the fact that revenue entries are standing in the name of the defendants in the original suit. Both the Courts below were of the opinion that, mere revenue entries would not entitle the defendants to deny the contentions of the plaintiffs regarding possession which is claimed under a registered sale deed executed by the grand father of the defendants which is not denied by them. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the material available on record in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 872/2012 are entitled to the order of temporary injunction.