B. SAVITRAMMA Vs. THIPPAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs have called in question order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bellary dated 2-2-2013 dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2012 and affirming the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the I.A. No. 2 filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 249 of 2011 seeking for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land measuring 1.36 acres in Sy. No. 771. Perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court dated 25-5-2012 would indicate that on appreciation of facts it has been found that plaintiffs were the owners of entire extent measuring 31.10 acres in Sy. No. 771 of Kolagallu Village, Bellary Hobli, Bellary Taluk and same had been inherited by them through one Sri B. Venkataramanachar who in turn had acquired the same under registered "Will' dated 20-7-1977 executed by his mother Smt. Badramma. Trial Court has also found that the appropriate Government had initiated proceedings against the plaintiffs as well as their predecessors in title for possessing excess land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and after adjudication, Assistant Commissioner had passed an order declaring that there was excess land measuring 2.72 acres and accordingly the same was taken over by the appropriate Government, out of which 1.36 acres of land was allotted to defendants 1 and 2 vide order dated 29-6-1995. It was also found by the Trial Court that ever since the date of possession being handed over by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the land allotted to them. As such, it found that there is prima facie case in favour of the defendants and held that in the event of temporary injunction is granted in favour of plaintiffs, it is the defendants who would be put to great hardship. As such, it has rejected the prayer sought by the plaintiffs.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order, plaintiffs filed miscellaneous appeal in M.A. No. 25 of 2012 and the lower Appellate Court on reappreciation of facts has found that RTC produced by the plaintiffs themselves for the period 2001-2002 to 2010-2011 relating to Sy. No. 771 indicated that 2.72 acres of land is shown to be in possession of defendants 1 and 2 and the remaining extent namely 28.3 acres being in possession of Krishna Murthy Achar namely 2nd plaintiff. It has also been noticed by the lower Appellate Court that plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of fact namely plaintiffs had not disclosed in the plaint as the defendants 1 and 2 in the instant suit (O.S. No. 249 of 2011) had also filed suit against the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 33 of 2012 before the III Additional Civil Judge, Bellary and had obtained an order of temporary injunction, whereunder the present plaintiffs have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject suit property by granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of defendants 1 and 2 herein and this filing of the suit was well-within the knowledge of the plaintiffs herein and they had been suppressed this fact. Hence, these amongst other myriad reasons, the lower Appellate Court has rightly refused to grant an order of temporary injunction. There is no infirmity committed by the Trial Court or lower Appellate Court calling for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. Hence, writ petition is dismissed as being meritless.