PARASHIVAPPA Vs. K.C.MAHADEVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the subject matter of the suit is a vacant site bearing Janjar No.1567 and property No.3C measuring East to West 36 feet and North to South 80 feet situated at Kontheiahnahundi Village, Biligere Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk which is morefully described in the schedule to the suit. It is also pleaded that plaintiff is using the vacant site as hittalu for his dwelling house. The khatha of the suit schedule site and dwelling house stands in the name of plaintiff. The defendants have site towards the western side of the suit vacant site. The defendants deliberately started to interfere with the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit vacant site. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit bearing O.S.No.19/2001 for permanent injunction against defendants before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud. The defendants put their appearance in the said suit and resisted the claim of plaintiff by filing written statement and objections. The High Court was pleased to grant temporary injunction against the defendants in the said suit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud granting temporary injunction, in favour of plaintiff, he preferred an appeal and the appeal came to be allowed by the First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the said suit, defendants also filed separate suit bearing O.S.No.163/2001 in respect of their site and the defendants have mentioned the boundaries of present suit property as boundaries of their site. The plaintiff, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings withdrawn his suit bearing O.S.No.19/2001 and contested the suit filed by the defendants i.e., O.S.No.163/2001 and the said suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the defendants have preferred R.S.A.No.511/2009 before this Court and the same was also dismissed and when the claim of the defendants was dismissed, the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, he filed the suit.

(3.) The Trial Court taking note of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and answered the issues as 'negative', in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has not proved possession and unless the possession is proved, the question of granting permanent injunction does not arise.