H.B.NARAPPA Vs. H.B.NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that both the Courts committed an error in considering the material available on record and granted the relief of permanent injunction only on the ground that records reveal that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the very grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming under them from locking the suit schedule properties is erroneous. Hence, it requires reconsideration.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the material available on record and particularly, while granting the relief of permanent injunction, the Trial Court restrained the defendants i.e., the appellants herein or anybody claiming under them from locking the suit schedule properties and the also restrained the defendants or anybody claiming under them from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and business over the suit schedule properties. The said relief is granted by considering the material available on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 as well as the evidence of defendants. The defendants have also specifically admitted the possession of the plaintiff that he is running the business i.e., Sri Nataraja Provision Stores and also admitted that the said Store is having CST and KST. The admission of D.W.1 is discussed in Para Nos.31 and 32 and so also admission of D.Ws.2 and 3 in Para No.33 and 34 and definite finding is given in Para No.35 with regard to the fact that possession of the suit schedule properties is with the plaintiff.