CHENNAMMA Vs. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE case of the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial court, is that the suit schedule property bearing site No. 2, khata No. 2, CMC No. 2/2, measuring east to west 50 feet and north to south 30 feet, situated at Singasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12.8.2002. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit, khata was also made out in the name of the plaintiff. It was the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendants, who had no claim over the suit property, had sought to interfere as on 18.1.2003 and tried to put up construction, at which stage, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint to the Jurisdictional Police and thereafter filed the suit.

(3.) GIVEN the above facts and circumstances, it was appropriate for the plaintiff to have amended the suit appropriately if there were subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, without seeking such an amendment, the plaintiff having pursued the suit for injunction and the court having restricted consideration of the pleadings with reference to the suit prayer, cannot be faulted. However, at the same time, in the interest of justice and in order to ensure that there is complete adjudication of the rights of the parties, it is necessary for the court below to have inquired into title and further developments as regards the contentions of the plaintiff that whatever rights conferred on the predecessor of the defendants, stood nullified by virtue of the grant of occupancy rights having been quashed and a regrant having been made in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. This aspect of the matter requires to be reconsidered for there is vehement contention on behalf of the respondent that all the proceedings that are sought to be referred to and relied upon by the appellant, were proceedings in which the defendants were never parties and it would have no binding effect on the right of the defendants. Therefore, there is a controversy that requires to be addressed with reference to those documents.