N.PANKAJA Vs. CHETHAN P. TAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondents. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 rejecting granting of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC dtd. 3/1/2024.

(2.) The factual matrix of case of appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing site No.47, khata No.96/1 which is morefully described in the schedule which comes under the BBMP measuring 45 feet East-West and 30 feet North-South and the same is gifted in favour of the plaintiff vide gift deed dtd. 11/8/2016 from her sister. The BBMP authorities have issued B register extract in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the tax to the BBMP and produced copy of the receipts and the gift deed from her sister and all are produced as document Nos.1 to 8.

(3.) It is contended that all the documents clearly discloses that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property, when such being the case, the defendant who do not have any manner of alleged right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they came near the property on 15/3/2022 and made attempts to interfere and same was resisted by the plaintiff and questioned the act of defendants for which defendants accessed his alleged right by virtue of the general power of attorney said to have been obtained from the original vendor of the suit schedule property namely Parvathamma, K.Narayana and others and 2nd defendant also asserts her alleged right over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed, said to have been executed by 1st defendant represented as GPA holder, the original owners and on hearing the same, the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the registered sale deed said to have been executed by 1st respondent representing as GPA holder of late K.Narayana and Parvathamma and on 23/8/2013, the same was registered which is placed as document No.9. Even though Parvathamma who is none other than the predecessor in title of vendor of the plaintiff namely Parvathamma cancelled the general power of attorney on 12/8/2013 and the same was registered when the same was cancelled.