N.GOPINATH Vs. VANITHA NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the plaintiff in a declaration and injunction suit in O.S.No.5598/2019 is knocking at the doors of writ court grieving against deferring of consideration of his application filed under Order XXXVIII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel and having filed the Statement of Objections, resist the suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property was bought by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.1995, a copy whereof is at Annexure- B; khata has been transferred and khata extract is at Annexure-D; petitioner has been paying the taxes from the beginning till date and the tax paid receipts are in Annexure- C series; he had also put up a small shed with power supply by the BESCOM; the entire property has a compound wall; this being the position, on interference by the respondents, petitioner has filed the subject suit; instead of granting immediate protective relief, the learned trial Judge has only ordered emergent notice; the respondents being rich and mighty, are highhandedly trying to put up construction and therefore, the indulgence of this Court is warranted.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the respondents have bought the property registered sale deed dated 29.10.2018 vide document No.1 to the plaint; khata extract for the year 2019- 20 and the khata transfer are at document Nos.2 and 3; tax paid receipt dated 31.05.2019 is at document No.4; encumbrance certificate is at document No.5; fast track new power connection by BESCOM are at document Nos.6 and 7; copies of photographs about the digging of foundation are at document No.10; the respondents having made all reasonable enquiries and after giving a public notice, have bought the property specially after verifying the encumbrance records which do not reflect petitioner's name at all; since the petitioner interfered with construction activity, the 4th respondent has filed an injunctive suit in O.S.No.5610/2019 and the order of temporary injunction limited in duration has been granted by the trial court on 31.07.2019 at Annexure-R6 to the Statement of Objections after looking into merits of the case and balance of convenience; the petitioner has suppressed this fact and therefore, this court should decline to interfere in the matter.