ESHWARA Vs. K. M. RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed the present writ petition against the order dated 03.10.2017 made in M.A.No.17/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Pandavapura, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the trial Court dated 12.10.2012 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.246/ 2009 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Pandavapura, granting temporary injunction in respect of 'B' schedule property.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs before the trial Court, filed suit for declaration declaring "B" schedule property as road as per the layout plan made by the defendant No. 6 and consequently for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering on causing obstruction of the plaintiffs of the right of way in the plaint "B" schedule property and mandatory injunction against defendant No. 6 directing them that they have made pakka road in "B"' schedule property as per layout plan and directing the defendant No. 7 to provide water and electricity supply to plaint "A" schedule property. Contending that the plaint "A" schedule property was a vacant site and further it was allotted to the mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant No. 6 through a resolution dated 27.08.1988 and the defendant No. 6 had executed a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1988 by sale consideration of Rs. 7,550/- from the mother of the plaintiffs and the mother of the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the "A" schedule property, all the documents stands in the name of the mother of the plaintiffs. The plaint "B" schedule property is 10 feet road made by the defendant No. 6 at the time of formation of layout. The plaintiffs have produced the copy of the layout plan prepared by the defendant No. 6, wherein it is very clear that there is a road towards the western side of the plaint "A" schedule property which is the plaint "B" schedule property and in spite of the same defendants were obstructed to use of the right of way in the "B" schedule property etc., Hence, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 filed the written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and for mandatory injunction is not maintainable either in law or on facts and sought for dismissal of the suit. The same was adopted by other defendants.