MALLU VEERAGOUDA PATIL Vs. ANNU SUBRAO MADGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only material point that clinches the whole appeal is, whether the application for restitution could have been filed by the respondent on the facts admitted to be true. Briefly stated the present respondent had filed Original Suit No. 264 of 1953 for permanent injunction against the appellants restraining them from interfering with his possession of the suit land on the ground that he was a sub tenant under the appellants. There was an application for interim injunction marked as Ex. 4 which came to be disposed of on 13-10-1953 directing the defendants-appellants to furnish security to on extent of Rs. 1,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order. In the course of the order, the Court which passed it, observed at paragraph 8 as follows:

(2.) It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was not a tenant or sub-tenant and in fact they themselves have approached the Tribunal and later they have also filed an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal. That however, is not a very material point at this stage in this appeal.

(3.) Section 144 C P C. reads as follows :