C.MOHAN SONU Vs. H.R.CHANDRA @ RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) These two appeals are filed in view of rejection of application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying the Court to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties and also directing them not to change the nature of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of both the parties, rejected the application in coming to the conclusion that already some considerations have been passed even on behalf of the minor plaintiffs and their father had received some consideration while executing the documents. Hence, there is no prima facie case to consider the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respective appellants would vehemently contend that the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and the property originally belongs to the grandfather one Uthnalappa who derived the property from partition in the year 1945 and thereafter he sold the property in favour of his brother and again he repurchased the property in the name of his minor children and once again the property was partitioned among the children and release deeds were also exchanged between the parties and power of attorney also executed. Based on the said power of attorney, defendant No.7 had purchased the property to the extent of 1 acre 7 guntas from different parties and now, he has taken up construction in the said property to the extent of 1 acre 7 guntas.