A N PARAMKUSHA BAI Vs. K KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 11-9-1995 in LA. No.984 of 1995 in O.S. No.251 of 1995 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, (for short "CPC"), seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the appellant-plaintiff over the plaint schedule property bearing No.139/1 (New No.7-3-476), Audaiah Nagar, Secunderabad or any other part thereof by way of execution of decree dated 7-12-1994 in O.S. No.369 of 1989, pending disposal of the suit was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant herein instituted suit O.S. No.251 of 1995 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction on the basis of Ex.A-1-registered sale deed dated 9-7-1987. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.984 of 1995 under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction. In support thereof, an affidavit was filed stating that the appellant herein is the obsolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed Ex, A-1 dated 9-7-1987 executed by the second respondent- Municipal Corporation and since the date of purchase the appellant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

(3.) The respondent No.1 who is the defendant No.l in the suit earlier filed suit O.S. No.2896 of 1978 for declaration that he is the adopted son late Baganna and obtained an ex parte decree on 29-7-1982. The respondent No.1 filed E.P. 94 of 1982 and on 6-12-1982 took possession of the plaint schedule property and effected the mutation in Municipal records as tenant. On 18-2-1986 the second respondent herein terminated tenancy of respondent No.1 with effect from the end of March 1986. The said notice, however, was served on the respondent No.1 on 3-4-1986. Thereafter the respondent No.1 appears to have paid the arrears of rent and sale price through banker's cheque. That was acknowledged by the second respondent herein. However, subsequently, it was returned and that despite these, the second respondent attempted to dispossess the first respondent from the suit premises on 9-5-1986, which was resisted by him. Ultimately the first respondent filed suit O.S. No.369 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, challenging the action of the second respondent for illegal dispossession. The said suit on contest was decreed on 7-12-1994, without going into the question of title. The appellant herein preferred A.S. No.6 of 1995 against the said decree and also filed LA. No.110 of 1995 and obtained the stay of operation of the decree in O.S. No.369 of 1994 dated 7-12-1994. It is stated that during the subsistence of interim direction granted by the appellate Court, on advice that the appeal is not maintainable, he withdraw the appeal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14th July, 1995 and thereafter the appellant-plaintiff instituted the present suit O.S. No.251 of 1995 under Section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act seeking relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction on the basis of registered sale deed dated 9-7-1987 executed by the second respondent herein in favour of the appellant. Pending disposal of the suit, the appellant herein sought for temporary injunction contending that she got the title in her favour by virtue of Ex.A-1, which is a registered sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the appellant herein and since the date of registered sale deed, she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In support of her case she marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. Ex, A-1 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 9-8-1987, Ex.A-2 is a certified copy of the plan attached to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-3 a copy of the judgment dated 7-12-1994 in O.S. No.369 of 1989.