N MUNISWAMY Vs. M LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 30th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in o. S. NO. 1450/1985 whereby the trial Court decreed the suit and the appellant-defendant no. 1 was given two months' time to remove the structure put up on the suit schedule property and to hand over vacant possession of the same to the respondent-plaintiff. It was also ordered that if the defendant fails to comply with the said order, plaintiff is at liberty to get possession of the suit schedule property along with the structure. The appellant-defendant No. 1 was also restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. But the trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their rankings before the trial Court.

(3.) THE facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and two others, alleging interference from the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiff is the owner and she is in possession of the suit schedule property. Earlier, original owner Muniswamappa alias papaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further case of the plaintiff that after filing of the suit, the defendant No. 1 taking advantage of the fact that there was no order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, after commencement of the Court vacation, defendant No. 1 seriously bent upon committing trespass and put up one temporary shed in the year 1988 and two temporary sheds in the year 1989 and another temporary shed in the year 1993, each shed measuring 10' x 10' built with mud walls and asbestos sheet roof. On the date of filing of the suit till 1988, suit schedule property was a vacant site. Therefore, he has filed an application under O. 6, R. 17 seeking amendment of prayer and sought additional relief of mandatory injunction and declaration of title to the suit schedule property.