NANDAREDDY Vs. SAROJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Decree of Senior Civil Judge, Malur allowing R.A.No. 120/2011.

(2.) The appeal before the lower Appellate Court was by the defendant, who is the respondent in the present appeal. The appellant filed the suit to pass a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent and restrain her from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Sub-sequently, the plaint was amended and the decree of declaration was also sought. Written statement was filed and the suit was contested. 6 issues and an additional issue were raised. During trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P5 and the defendant got herself examined as DW-1 and examined 2 witnesses as DWs 2 and 3 and marked Exhibits D1 to D8. At the stage of arguments, a Memo was filed by the plaintiff, not pressing the relief of declaration. The prayer in that regard was deleted. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, Trial court decreed the suit with costs and defendant was restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed R.A.No. 120/2011, under Sec. 96 of CPC, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Malur. Therein, I.A. Nos. 4, 5, 7 to 9 were filed. Applications were contested by filing statement of objections. I.As. were taken up along with the main appeal and the following points were raised for consideration;