MOHAMED AMEER Vs. HAFEEZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original appellant herein was defendant No. 1. in the original suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 8 for declaration that the order of eviction passed in HRC 406/1985 is null and void and not binding on them and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 1 (a). The facts of the case are found in the impugned order of the court below. The 1st defendant admittedly had obtained a decree for eviction against defendant No. 4-Smt. Sakhina bi in HRC 406/1965. The plaintiffs pleaded that the schedule property is part and parcel of the land known as Golla Malik Shah Fakir Inam land and the Durga and the lands were under the supervision of Muzarai Department Syed Budden Shah was managing the Darga and the lands till his death and thereafter, his grand daughter Smt. Sakhina 8i-defendant No. A came in possession and management of the Darga and was conducting the annual sandal and urus etc. The property then went under the control of the Wakf Board by virtue of gazette Notification issued in 1965. A copy of the order dated 12-5-1976 appointing defendant No. 4 as Muzaver is produced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pleaded that the decree obtained by defendant No. I. is not binding on them. Defendant No 1 pleaded that defendants Nos 2 to 4 had no interest in the suit property ; that 4th defendant was a tenant and he had filed HRC petition and obtained an order of eviction and ihe plaintiffs are sub-tenants and they are bound by the decree of eviction, so also in view of the provisions of Sec. 30 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.

(2.) After filing the suit I.A.I, came to be filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant No. I. from executing the decree in HRC 406/1965 It appears an exparte order of temporary injunction was given in favour of the plaintiffs and I.A No. IV came to be filed by defendant No. I. to vacate the same. The Court below, having considered the pleadings and other material placed before it, dismissed I A No. IV. That virtually means that the order passed on LA. No 1 came to be made absolute.

(3.) In this appeal, defendant No. I. has urged that the Court below went wrong in passing the impugned order when the it on was executable and the plaintiffs could not have challenged the same claiming that they are sub-tenants under defendant No. 4. The proceedings for eviction were spread over for a period of more than 20 years and therefore, he is unable to obtain possession of the suit premises. The decree passed against defendant No. 4 is legal and valid and is executable one. The Court had no jurisdiction to restrain defendant No. 1. from executing it under S. 41 of the Specific Relief Act ('the Act' for short). The respondents have not made any arrangements for their representation in this appeal and hence, the arguments were heard on behalf of the appellants.