LAKSHMAMMA Vs. M P KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first plaintiff is the appellant and second plaintiff is made one of the respondents. The suit for injunction in respect of the vacant site measuring 30' x 30' at Muthkur Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, as Khata No. 183, was partly decreed by the Trial Court, from interfering with the first plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property alone by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court though held that the possession of the schedule property with the plaintiff is proved, holding that no interference has been caused by the defendant, the appeal was allowed and the decree granted by the Trial Court was set aside. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal.

(2.) THIS second appeal has been admitted on the following question of law.

(3.) ONCE the Appellate Court finds the possession is with the plaintiff, thus rendering a concurrent finding with the Trial Court, there should not be any hesitation on the part of the Appellate Court to grant injunction. An aggrieved person comes to the Court complaining of interference of the defendant, may be at a particular point of time the defendant has not caused interference, but once the fear stands heavily in the mind of the aggrieved person, there shall be no difficulty for the Court to grant injunction, especially when it is found that particular person is in possession. The fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the property has not been disputed. On the other hand, the Courts below rendered concurrent finding on such possession. It is a fit case wherein injunction ought to have been granted, by the First Appellate Court.