NARASINGH Vs. K BASAVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation between the parties before this Court. The plaintiff in O.S. No.16316/2005 is the appellant. The plaintiff is before the Court below seeking for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of the property bearing site No.3 formed in Sy.No.7/3A of Chikkbettahalli, Yelahanka Hobli; Bangalore North Taluk. In aid of the said prayer, the plaintiff also filed an application IA:I seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property.

(2.) The defendant who appeared on notice had disputed the claim of the plaintiff. Ultimately the issue which remains to be adjudicated by the Court below is as to whether actually the plaintiff had retained any portion in site No.3 formed in Sy.No. 7/3A or as to whether the property to which the claim is laid by the plaintiff is some other property other than the property which was purchased by the defendant. This itself would indicate that there is a serious dispute with regard to the identity of the property. In that background, the Court below has referred to the contentions put forth by the parties and referred to the documents which were placed therein and considering that the defendant had purchased the site in question of which he is in possession had rejected the prayer made in the application seeking for temporary injunction.

(3.) Incidentally, what requires to be noticed is that at an earlier point of time when the injunction had been granted, the defendant in the suit was before this Court in MFA.No. 10418/2005. This Court by its order dated 17.3.2006 disposed of the appeal with certain directions to the Court below to reconsider the matter taking into account the recitals made in the General Power of Attorney under which the defendant claims to have acquired the title. On such remand, the Court below has referred to the contentions of the parties and has thereafter rejected the claim made by the plaintiff seeking for temporary injunction. I have referred to these aspects of the matter to indicate that on remand the Court below has come to the prima facie conclusion that the defendant is in possession of the disputed property. However, as already noticed above the issue with regard to whether the defendant had purchased the property which belong to the plaintiff is an issue which is at large before the Court below and as such, at this stage to pronounce upon the same may not be appropriate. However, considering the fact that the defendant is in possession of the property he is entitled to maintain the status quo with regard to the possession till the suit is disposed of. But, since the identity of the property is in question, the defendant has to be directed not to put up any construction on the site till the suit is disposed of. That apart, it is noticed that the suit itself is of the year 2005 and it is stated at the Bar that the pleadings have been completed and it is at the stage of recording the evidence.