PRAKASH AND ORS. Vs. MANGILAL CHOUDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the learned City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, thereby granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff -respondent herein restraining defendants 1 to 5 - appellants herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and from putting up any construction on the suit property.

(2.) SUIT O.S. No. 9049/2014 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing BBMP No. 2, presently bearing New BBMP No. 2/1, KHB Main Road, Manorayanapalya, Ward No. 96, Bengaluru, morefully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Rehana Begum and Noushad Khan under a registered sale deed dated 01.07.2004. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after purchase, he got the khatha in his favour from BBMP on 26.07.2004 whereafter he has been regularly paying taxes and other cesses to BBMP. He has further stated that he was staying with his family in the suit property and his wife was running marketing agency in the property in the name and style 'Akash Marketing'. To prove his possession, plaintiff produced and relied upon the telephone bills receipts for having paid electrical charges and electrical installation made and also the identity card issued by the election commission. Further case of the plaintiff was that he decided to demolish the existing structure and put up a fresh construction. For the said purpose he obtained sanction plan from the BBMP vide endorsement dated 22.07.2014. The building was demolished with a view to put up fresh construction. At that stage, according to the plaintiff, defendants forcefully and illegally entered the property in order to put up a shed in the suit property which was resisted and stopped by the defendants. Thus, plaintiff claims to have been constrained to file the suit for injunction. Along with the plaint, an application seeking temporary injunction as stated herein above was filed.

(3.) THE Trial Court upon considering the entire materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the General Power of Attorney executed by M. Chinnappa was placed before the Court and that based on the said General Power of Attorney, the property was sold by N. Jeevaratna W/o. late S. Nagaraj in favour of Rehana Begum from whom the plaintiff has purchased it as was demonstrated by producing the copy of the registered sale deed. The Trial Court has further found that the other documents produced before the Court such as telephone bills, electricity installation communications and tax paid receipts pertaining to the property in question disclosed that plaintiff was in possession of the property. The Trial Court has also considered the assertions made by the plaintiff that he got demolished the construction put up on the property with a view to erect a residential use, in this regard, the sanction plan obtained by the plaintiff which was produced before the court has also been referred to and relied upon to record a prima facie finding that plaintiff was able to establish his possession over the suit property and the interference by the defendants.