KEMPARASAIAH Vs. K RAJASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant-6's revision against the order dated 23-1-1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Mandya, in Misc. Appeal No, 45/86 affirming the order dated 28-8- 1986 passed by the Munsiff, Nagamangala, in O.S. No. 45/85 granting the temporary injunction.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession of his one-fourth share in the various suit properties including the suit item No. 1 property bearing Sy. No. 64/4 alleging that the suit properties including the suit item No. 1 property were the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants-1 to 4 and that defendant-6, claiming to have pur chased the property from defendant-5, was trying to dispossess him. He also urged that the sale, if any, by defendant-5 in favour of defendant-6 was not legal and was not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate and are not binding on him. In the course of the suit, he filed I.A. No. II under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. requesting for a temporary injunction restraining defendants-5 and 6 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit item No. 1 property. It Was resisted by defendants-5 and 6. The trial-court allowed I.A-II and granted the temporary injunction pending the suit. Defendant-6 filed Misc. Appeal No. 45/ 86. The learned Civil Judge dismissed that appeal and confirmed the grant of temporary injunction. Hence, the revision by defendant-6.

(3.) Both the courts-below have concurrently held that the plaintiff and the other members of the joint family are in possession of the suit item No. 1 property. The said conclusion arrived at by the courts below is well substantiated by the material on record. The conclusion cannot be said to be either absurd or perverse or unreasonable when, prima facie, supported by the unimpeachable evidence placed by the parties before the Court.