MARUTI DADARAO GAJKE Vs. KONDIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition file by the original plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Asstt. Judge, Beed reversing the order of temprory injunction granted by the Trial Court and it arises out of the following facts.

(2.) It appears that the respondent No. 1 who was defendant No 1 in the Trial Court was the owner of entire survey No. 49 equivalent to Gat No. 115 situated at village Nalwandi in Beed District. The total area of the land was 24 acres 36 gunthas It is not disputed that the plaintiff petitioner was declared as owner of 22 acres 25 gunthas out of this land under Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Hyderabad Tenancy Act). The plaintiff has produced in the Trial Court a declaration of ownership issued in his favour by the competent authority in this respect. Defendant No. 1 who was the original owner of the land continued to be the owner of the remaining area of 2 acres 11 gunthas of this land. Now the defendant No. 3 is wife of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, who is respondent No. 2 in this petition claims through defendant No. 1. After the ownership certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff deposited entire amount of consideration required to be paid for the price of the land and it is not disputed that this price is paid to the landlord defendant No. 1. It appears that thereafter mutation entry was also made in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid area on 20-3-64 after service of notice to that effect on respondent No.1. According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the land and he continued to remain in possession of the same.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that the defendants 'started interfering with his possession and he alleged further that defendant No. 2 got certain entries manipulated in 7/12 extract and therefore, on 12-12-77, plaintiff filed a suit in the Trial Court for perpetual injunction against the defendants. In this suit he claimed that he was the owner of land and was in actual possession of the same. He alleged further that the defendants were obstructing his peaceful possession and so he prayed for perpetual injunction. In this very suit on 8-2-78, he filed an application for temporary injunction and along- with it he filed affidavits of two adjactment owners. The Trial Court after going through the material before him issued ex partead interim injunction against the defendants and simultaneously issued show-cause notice against the defendants. In response to the notice, defendant No. 2 alone appeared before the Trial Court and the defendants 1 and 3 did not appear before the Trial Court and did not, file any say to the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff.