MUNIYAPPA Vs. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the defendant in a suit for injunction is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule property, alleging that he purchased the same from one chinnappa, the brother of the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1984. Chinnappa obtained the property on 30-4-1982 on the basis of an Order under the inams abolition act. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he is put in possession of the plaint schedule property and the revenue records has been changed in has name. He has also secured a loan of Rs. 4,09,5007- from a financial institution on the security of the plaint schedule land. The defendant, who has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is attempting to trespass into the suit schedule property and accordingly, the suit is filed for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed i.a. ii under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching on the suit schedule property.

(2.) the defendant filed an objection contending that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The vendor of the plaintiff, his brother chinnappa has absolutely no manner of right to alienate the plaint schedule property. According to the defendant, chinnappa his brother, was managing the affairs of the joint family on behalf of himself and his brother and chinnappa, after coming into force the Karnataka inams abolition Act, 1977, filed an application before the land tribunal for grant of occupancy rights as a member of the joint family and the land tribunal confirmed the occupancy rights jointly in the name of the defendant and his brother chinnappa as members of the joint family. The plaintiff, in collusion with his brother chinnappa has obtained the sale deed in his favour. The defendant has also filed a suit in o.s. No. 448 of 1994 against chinnappa for partition and separate possession of his share in the plaint schedule and other properties. It is further alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to an Order of injunction in respect of the joint family property on the basis of the sale deed executed by one of the members of the family. It is also pleaded by him that there cannot be any injunction restraining one coparcener from the enjoyment of the joint family property and that his brother chinnappa had no absolute right to alienate the plaint schedule property and that it is not binding on the defendant. On these allegations, he prayed for dismissing the application for temporary injunction.

(3.) the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has, prima facie, proved that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the basis of the sale deed executed by the defendant's brother chinnappa, on 26-3-1984. It was also found by the trial court that, admittedly, chinnappa, being the manager of the joint hindu family he is competent to alienate the property and the remedy of the defendant, if at all, is to file a suit for partition and to get his share and that he is not entitled to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, a temporary injunction was granted by the trial court. Though the defendant filed an appeal against the Order before the lower appellate court, that appeal was also dismissed confirming the Order passed by the trial court. The defendant has come up in revision against these orders.