COMMISSIONER Vs. B.L. RAMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging allowing of the application-I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26) dtd. 24/5/2022 and praying this Court to set aside the impugned order.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction is that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property bearing No.7, formed in old Sy.No.263/1, re-survey No.286/2 measuring 21,780 square feet situated at P.N.S. Layout, Banaswadi, Bengaluru with RCC building. It is contended that her deceased husband Venkatapathi had acquired the said property in a partition decree in O.S.No.4577/97 and constructed buildings in the said property by investing huge amount and developed the same by paying betterment charges and not transferred khatha into his name and he died on 6/12/2017 and thereafter, the khatha of the schedule property said to have been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and she is said to be paying tax to the BBMP. It is further urged that the entire area in and around the schedule property came to be developed about decades back during the lifetime of her father-in-law. It is contended that on 18/9/2020, the officials of the defendant came near the schedule property and attempted to demolish the structures in the said property highhandedly and though at that time, the said illegal acts were resisted and stopped by the plaintiff and the neighbours, the defendant has been threatening her of demolishing the existing structures on the schedule property. Hence, she has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendant from demolishing the existing structure put up on the schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.