ADVAITH CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. S.SHASHIKALA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This appeal is filed against the order dtd. 21/10/2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.5995/2024 praying to set aside the order allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit schedule 'B' property and to allow I.A.No.2 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC to vacate the exparte status-quo granted in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.5995/2024 for the relief of permanent injunction and also sought for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate and handover the encroached portion of suit schedule 'A' property i.e., suit schedule 'B' property to the plaintiff and such other relief. It is contended that the plaintiff is the owner of site No.4, which is morefully described in the schedule and the same is formed in Sy.No.181/3, totally measuring 2880 sq.ft., out of which the plaintiff purchased to an extent of 1440 sq.ft. and remaining extent of 1440 sq.ft. was purchased in the name of Shivashankar, i.e., the husband of the plaintiff under two different registered sale deeds dtd. 1/9/2017. It is contended that originally one Bachegowda was the owner of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.181/3 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring an extent of 0.23 guntas. During the lifetime of Bachegowda, he had instituted a suit for the relief of declaration and possession in respect to the land bearing Sy.No.181/3 in O.S.No.73/1960 before the Munsiff Court, Bengaluru and the Court was pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff and declared Bachegowda as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property therein vide its judgment and decree dtd. 19/6/1963.