SAMPATH SAI GARRE Vs. CHRISTOPHER GIDDENS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also taking note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court, the plaintiff claims relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and also sought interim relief of temporary injunction against respondents in respect of the property, which has been described in the schedule, claiming that they are the owners of the property and all records stands in the name of the plaintiff. Originally, the father of defendant No.2 has purchased the immovable property bearing Sy.No.56/3 and Sy.No.23/7 Khata No.80, situated at Borewell Road, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring Eastern side 93 feet, Western side 35 feet, Northern side 590 feet and southern side 610 feet, which is the written statement schedule property. The said property has been purchased by father and mother of plaintiff under Sale Deed dtd. 24/7/1992 from Paul D D'souza, who has been appointed as administrator of the probate of Will and estate of Late. Edith Cecelia Keeler @ E. C. keeler. Khata has been transferred in the name of said administrator, who has transferred in favour of father and mother of defendant No.2 under MR NO.1/1992-93. Accordingly, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are not having any right and title over written statement schedule property. But on the guise of Sale Deed dtd. 11/3/2004 claiming right over the written statement schedule property. The plaintiff has not in possession of written statement schedule property and prayed the Court to dismiss the IA's.