CHINTHAM ANJAMMA Vs. CHINTHAM RAMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed agaiast the order in IA No. 16/89 in OS No. 450/ 86 on the tile of the 1st Addl. Dist Munsif's Court, Ongole, granting a mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent for the removal of asbestos roofing said to have been laid by the petitioner therein, in the place of thatched roofing. The learned Dist. Munsif found that the petitioner has acted in violation of the order of injupction. restraining her from interfering with the possession of the respondent, by removing the thatched roofing and by replacing the same with asbestos sheets.

(2.) The Appellate Court confirmed the mandatory injunction granted by the lower Court and held that the petitioner trespassed into the suit premises in violation of the temporary injunction granted earlier in IA No. 3334/86 and asbestos sheets were laid.

(3.) It is contended by Sri G. Peda Babu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while granting interim mandatory injunctions, the Court should confine such orders to cases where there would be otherwise serious discomfort to the complaining party and relied on a decision of this court reported in Padigayya & Co, V Krishna Murthy (I) 1984 (2) APLJ 46 (SN). He, therefore, contends that the respondent, who is the complaining party in the instant case, does not suffer from any serious discomfort on account of the replacing of thatched roofing by asbestos sheets He also contends that the finding regarding the trespass is not true, since the Courts beiow did not properly consider the effect of Ex. B1 basing upon which the petitioner asserted her possession to the plaint schedule property, and there was no denial of the same by the respondents.