MARI DODDATAMMA MARKUNDI Vs. SANTAYA RAMKRISHNA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent being in possession of certain lands instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal, to seek an injunction to restrain the appellant from dispossessing him by enforcing the decree passed in Suit No. 293 of 1917. He further asked to be restored to possession if during the pendency of this suit he is so dispossessed. The facts which have necessitated these proceedings are as follows:-

(2.) In or about March 1915 the respondent put the appellant in possession of the suit lands under a Chalgeni agreement. In 1917 the respondent obtained a decree in the Court of the Mamlatdar at Kumta in possessory Suit No. 3 of 1917 and took possession which he has retained ever since. The appellant then brought Suit No. 293 of 1917 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumta for restoration of possession, under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. He obtained a decree in his favour, but before he could execute it the respondent instituted the present suit to establish his title to the lands and to obtain an injunction as stated above.

(3.) The lower Courts agree in holding that the respondent has established his title to the said lands The decree passed by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the District Court, is in these terms: Plaintiff is entitled to continue to be in possession of the suit land. Defendant is permanently restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's possession of the land on the strength of the decree in Civil Suit No. 293 of 1917. The decree is inoperative and incapable of execution to that extent by virtue of this order.