CHINNATHAYAPPA Vs. SHASKCDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 2-11-1993 on la. No. Iv in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 on the file of the xv additional city civil judge, bangalore, filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as hereunder : that, the appellant-plaintiff had filed the above suit as against the respondent-defendant for a declaration and permanent injunction and to restrain the respondent-defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property described as the portion of the lands bearing s. Nos. 42/3, 42/4 and 42/5 now re-s. No. 144 situated at mathikere village now within the corporation division No. 2, bangalore-54 measuring east to west on the northern side 115 feet, east to west on the southern side 65 feet, north to south on the eastern side 86 feet and north to south on the western side 102 feet. The appellant-plaintiff had also filed la. No. I for ad interim Order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent-defendant from interfering or meddling with the above suit schedule prop- erty. That, the ad interim Order of temporary injunction was granted by the xv additional city civil judge, bangalore (henceforth in brief as 'city civil judge') and subsequently on filing la. No. Ii for vacating the ad interim Order of temporary injunction, the appellant-plaintiff had filed a memo before the city civil judge undertaking that he would not put up any construction in the suit schedule property. . that the learned city civil judge had recorded the said memo having entertained the same. That, subsequently in filing the objection statement as well as la. No. Iv for an ad interim Order of temporary injunction as against by the appellant-plaintiff, the respondent-defendant contended that the suit schedule property is totally different from one under his peaceful possession and enjoyment and the property under his occupation is bearing No. 42/1 of mathikere village, measuring east to west 92 feet + 45 feet x north to south 98 feet + 80 feet. It is also seen that the schedule set out by the appellant-plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in his plaint is totally different from one set out in la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant. In the absence of the record of the city civil judge, the appellant-plaintiff had supplied me with the copy of la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant before the learned city civil judge.

(3.) BY entertaining la. No. Iv and further entertaining the objection statement filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the city civil judge had heard the same and passed the impugned Order, whereby while allowing the said la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant, he had modified the Order on la. No. I granted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff to say that the appellant-plaintiff shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent-defendant with regard to the said extent of land in sy. No. 42/1. Having been aggrieved thereto, the appellant-plaintiff is before this court by filing the above appeal. Strictly speaking, the appellant-plaintiff cannot have any grievance to make out in filing the instant appeal, for, the Order passed by the city civil judge is nothing to do with the suit schedule property of the appellant-plaintiff; all the more he had preferred the appeal on the point of legality and propriety.