ANANDA SETTY Vs. CHOWDASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter coming up for orders on I.A. II, for vacating the interim stay granted, petition itself is taken for hearing by consent of learned Counsel on both sides and it is disposed of by the following order: Plaintiff who is the respondent in this proceeding filed 0 S. No. 514/86 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff at Arasikere, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant therein (revision petitioner in this Court) restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. He also obtained temporary injunction ex-parte. Temporary injunction came to be vacated on I A. Ill filed by the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order on I.A. Ill plaintiff filed the appeal before the learned Civil Judge at Arasikere. The learned Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the trial Court was in error in vacating the temporary injunction.

(2.) The trial Court essentially vacated the temporary injunction on the ground that plaintiff was party to a palupatti which was produced by the defendant to prove his possession and that he was in possession was supported by the affidavit of his brother and three other cousins. In that circumstance he came to the conclusion that any presumption arising on the basis of entries in the record of rights and tenancy crop register and the index ot land would stand rebutted. The appellate Court has found fault with that reasoning on the ground that the affidavits should not be relied upon as they were all affidavits of-parties interested in the defendant and that the trial Court erred in relying upon a document which was otherwise inadmissible in evidence. Palupatti was not registered is not in dispute Section 49 of the Illustration Act makes it obligatory that documents which are required to be registered and which are not registered shall not be admitted in evidence except for the limited purpose referred to in the Explanations to that Section. The palupatti or a memorandum of partition can only be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proof of the factum of partition, but never for the purpose of proving the contents or even possession of the properties mentioned therein.

(3.) Therefore, the Appellate Court was correct in its reasoning and conclusion. Revision Petition is therefore rejected. Petition rejected.