Karnataka High Court
Smt Shanthamma vs Mrs.S Kantha on 23 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1494
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5353/2016 (CPC)
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7212/2017(CPC)
IN M.F.A. NO. 5353/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O. LATE SRI RAYAPPA
SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED
BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
BEING APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 IN THE
INSTANT APPEAL.
1. SMT. ALPHONSE MARY
D/O. LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. SMT. PHILOMINA BAI
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SMT. BRIDGIT BAI
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4. SMT. ELEZABETH RANI
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2
5. SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
6. SRI ANTHONY RAJ
S/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
APPELLANT NOs. 2 TO 6 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAYA
NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. MRS. S. KANTHA
W/O SRI. NARASARAJU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT CA SITE NO. 40
25TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN
1ST JPHASE, J.P. NAGARA
BENGALURU.
2. SRI. S. ANANTHA RAJU
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAJU
@ CHINNABBAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
a). SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
3
b) SMT. VANAKAKSHI
D/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
c) SMT. KANTHA
D/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
d) SRI. MOHAN RAJU
S/O LATE SRI.ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
e) SMT. KALYANI
D/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS. 2(a) TO 2(e) ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 165/16, LAXMI
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR
KALYANI MAGNAM, IIM POST,
DORESANIPALYA, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.
3. SRI. JANARDAN RAJU
S/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA RAJU @
CHINNABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 510, 5TH CROSS
6TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR III PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
4. SMT. PREMA RAJU
W/O LATE. SRI. C. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
5. SRI. SUNIL RAJU
S/O LATE SRI. C. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
4
6. SRI. SANJAY RAJU
S/O LATE SRI C. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 4-6 ARE ALL RESIDING
AT NO. 1395, 13TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS
BTM LAYOUT II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 076.
7. SMT. MARY PHILOMINA
D/O LATE PILLANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
C/O. ST. ANTHONY ENTERPRISES
NO. 001, MAHAVEER CLASSIC
APARTMENTS. SAHYADRI LAYOUT
PANDURANGANAGAR
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
8. SMT. PHILOMINA
W/O LATE T.A. RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT DORESANIPALYA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
9. SRI ANANDA RAJU
S/O LATE ANANDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
C/O KODANA REDDY BUILDING
ARAKERE VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
10. SMT. A. SUSHEELA BAI
W/O SRI. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT DORESANIPALYA VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
5
BILEKALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 076.
11. MRS. MERI RITA
W/O. SRI DASS
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.26, DORESANIPALYA
VILLAGE, BILEKAHALLI POST
BENGALURU - 560 076.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA
FOR M/S HOLLA & HOLLA, ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1,
SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4)
IN M.F.A.NO. 7212/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE. SRI. RAYAPPA
SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED
BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
BEING APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 IN THE
INSTANT APPEAL.
1. SMT. ALPHONSE MARY
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SMT. PHILOMINA BAI
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
3. SMT. BRIDGIT BAI
D/O LATE SRI RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6
4. SMT. ELEZABETH RANI
D/O LATE SRI. RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
5. SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE SRI. RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
6. SRI. ANTHONY RAJ
S/O LATE SRI. RAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO. 2 TO 6 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAYA
NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD;
BENGALURU-560 076.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. S. KANTHA
W/O SRI. NARASARAJU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT CA SITE NO. 40,
25TH CROSS 30TH MAIN
1ST JPHASE, J.P. NAGARA
BENGALURU.
2. SRI. S. ANANTHA RAJU
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAJU
@ CHINNABBAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
7
2.a) SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
2.b) SMT. VANAKAKSHI
D/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2.c) SMT. KANTHA
D/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2.d) SRI. MOHAN RAJU
S/O LATE SRI.ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2.e) SMT. KALYANI
D/O LATE SRI. ANANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS. 2(a) TO 2(e) ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 165/16, LAXMI
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR
KALYANI MAGNAM, IIM POST,
DORESANIPALYA, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.
3. SRI. JANARDAN RAJU
S/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA RAJU @ CHINNABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 510, 5TH CROSS
6TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR III PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
4. SMT. PREMA RAJU
W/O LATE. SRI. C. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
8
5. SRI. SUNIL RAJU
S/O LATE SRI. C. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
6. SRI. SANJAY RAJU
S/O LATE SRI C. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 4-6 ARE ALL RESIDING
AT NO. 1395, 13TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS
BTM LAYOUT II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 076.
7. SMT. MARY PHILOMINA
D/O LATE PILLANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
C/O. ST. ANTHONY ENTERPRISES
NO. 001, MAHAVEER CLASSIC
APARTMENTS. SAHYADRI LAYOUT
PANDURANGANAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
8. SMT. PHILOMINA
W/O LATE T.A. RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDING AT DORESANIPALYA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
9. SRI ANANDA RAJU
S/O LATE ANANDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
C/O KODANDA REDDY BUILDING
ARAKERE VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
10. SMT. A. SUSHEELA BAI
W/O SRI. JOSEPH
9
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDING AT DORESANIPALYA VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BILEKALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 076.
11. MRS. MERI RITA
W/O SRI. DASS
AGEDA ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 26, DORESANIPALYA
VILLAGE BILEKAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 076.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA FOR SMT. MAYA HALLA FOR
M/S HOLLA & HOLLA, ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1 ,
SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-6)
MFA NO.5353/2016 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r)
OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE ORER
DATED 22.06.2016 PASSED ON I.A. IX IN O.S.NO.923/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING I.A.NO.IX FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
MFA NO.7212/2017 IS FILED UNDER 43 RULE (1)(R) OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
31.05.2017 PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S.NO.923/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-13), DISMISSING THE I.A. UNDER
ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the plaintiffs in OS.No.923/2009 on the file of the V Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City impugning the orders by the Trial Court rejecting the two interim applications filed by the appellants for temporary injunction against the respondents from changing the nature and from alienating and creating the third party rights in the land in Sy.No.165/9 of Doresanipalya, Bilekanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Benglauru South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas (for short ' the Suit Schedule Property').
The appellants filed two interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC'); and the appellants filed the first of such applications along with the plaint seeking temporary injunction against all the defendants/respondents from alienating or creating third party rights over the Suit Schedule Property and the second application (IA No.9) on 11 16.10.2015 for temporary injunction only against certain defendants/ respondents viz., the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants/respondents from changing the nature of the Suit Schedule Property. The Trial Court rejected these two interim applications by separate orders dated 22.06.2016 and 31.05.2017 that are impugned in these appeals.
In MFA No.5353/2016 the appellants have impugned the Trial Court's order dated 22.06.2016 rejecting IA No.9 filed by the appellants for grant of temporary injunction restraining the first, third to sixth defendants/respondents from changing the nature of the Suit Schedule Property; and in MFA No.7212/2017, the appellants have impugned the Trial Court's order dated 31.05.2017 rejecting the earlier application filed for grant of temporary injunction against all the defendants from alienating/creating charge over the Suit Schedule Property.
12
The facts germane for disposal of these appeals are as follows:
The appellants have filed suit in OS.No.923/2009 seeking declaration that they, being the lineal descendents of late Jeevanappa s/o. Shanthappa, are the absolute owners of the Suit Schedule Property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the appellants' alleged possession of the Suit Schedule Property and for other relief/s. The appellants have asserted that the Suit Schedule Property originally belonged to Sri.Jeevanappa, who is shown as the owner (iduvalidara) of the Suit Schedule Property in the different survey and revenue records; that Sri.Jeevanappa was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property until his demise and thereafter, his four sons viz., Raju, Rayappa, Appaji and Joseph continued in possession of the Suit Schedule Property; that after the demise of 13 Rayappa, one of the sons of Sri.Jeevanappa, the appellants, being the wife and children of Rayappa, succeeded to the Suit Schedule Property as the lineal descendents of Sri.Jeevanappa; that the appellants continued in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property; that the appellants were in possession of the Suit Schedule Property even as of the date of the suit; that though the Suit Schedule Property is an agricultural land, there is no cultivation because of the developments in the properties in the vicinity; and that the defendants/respondents attempted to interfere with the appellants' possession of the Suit Schedule Property in the month of October 2008.
The appellants have also asserted that when they learnt that the respondents were claiming right, title and interest in the Suit Schedule Property based on certain registered transactions in their favour, they obtained certified copies of the different registered transactions in favour of the respondents; and that the incongruous recitals 14 in the different registered transactions established inter alia that the respondents'/defendants' vendor/s had fraudulently set up a false partition amongst Sri.Jeevanappa and his brothers and had executed subsequent deeds culminating in registered documents under which the defendants were asserting wrongful claim in certain portions of the Suit Schedule Property. The appellants have further asserted that the first and the second defendants/respondents are responsible for the different transactions/deeds culminating in different deeds in favour of the defendants.
The first, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents have filed written statement/s and objections to these interim applications; and these respondents have contested the suit [and the applications] asserting inter alia that the appellants in suppressing material details have presented a false case; that the appellants, without asking for specific relief/s as against the registered transactions, which are 15 completed over three - four decades, have in fact challenged such registered transactions in seeking declaration that the appellants are lineal descendants of Sri.Jeevanappa and they are absolute owners of the Suit Schedule Property; and that the appellants have resorted to such maneuvering to beat the law of limitation. The respondents have also pleaded that they have been in possession of the respective portions of the Suit Schedule Property consequent to the different registered deeds in their favour, that they have obtained requisite sanctions and No-objections from different authorities for the purposes of carrying out developments in their respective portions and that they have also commenced development activities in their respective portions in the Suit Schedule Property. The respondents have not only denied the appellants' assertions as regards the title and possession of the Suit Schedule Property, but have also asserted in 16 themselves title and possession to the respective portions in the Suit Schedule Property.
The Trial Court by the impugned orders has rejected both the applications, and therefore, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
In MFA No.5353/2016, first and fourth respondents are on caveat and represented by their respective counsels, and no notice was issued to the other respondents. In MFA No.7212/2017, first, fourth and sixth respondents are on caveat and represented by their respective counsels, and memo is filed seeking dispensation of notice to other respondents and memo is allowed at the risk of the appellants.
The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the appellants/appellants urged that the Trial Court had rejected the applications perfunctorily without necessary consideration; that a perusal of the recitals in the 17 first set of registered deeds establish that the alleged partition (under which the respondents claim title to the Suit Schedule Property) is tenuous and unbelievable; that Sri.Jeevanappa was shown as the owner of the Suit Schedule Property in the revenue records not only after the so called partition but also after the registered transactions in favour of some of the respondents; that the documents relied upon by the appellants, including revenue records relating to the Suit Schedule Property, show that the appellants and their predecessor-in-title were in possession of the Suit Schedule Property; and that these circumstances showed that the respondents could have neither claimed possession or title to the Suit Schedule Property.
The Learned Senior Counsel, in the background of the aforementioned contentions, submitted that the material documents and circumstances, as borne out by indisputable documents, ought to have been considered by the Trial Court, and if these were considered, the Trial Court could 18 not have concluded that the appellants had failed to make out a prima facie case or balance of convenience or irreparable injury.
The appellants have also urged in the Memorandum of Appeal that Trial Court could not have rejected the application (IA No.9) filed by the appellants on the ground that this application is filed belatedly in the year 2015 after the suit was instituted in the year 2009; and the Trial Court should have noted that the earlier application filed at the time of institution of the suit was not considered and when the respondents again tried to interfere with the appellants' possession of the Suit Schedule Property, the appellants filed a memo for consideration of the first of the interim application and on the same day filed IA.9 (for injunction against changing the nature of the Suit Schedule Property), and as such, there was no delay in filing IA No.9 and that the appellants have made out a prima facie case, balance of 19 convenience and irreparable injury in their favour for grant of interim orders as prayed for in the present applications.
The learned counsel Sri Rajendra for Sri.Vivek Holla and Sri.M.Shivaprakash argued in support of the impugned orders contending that the impugned orders are unexceptionable inasmuch as the present applications filed by the appellants could not have been allowed by the trial Court as the suit itself is not maintainable; that the appellants have suppressed material facts; and that the respondents, who have been in possession of the respective portions of the Suit Schedule Property, have purchased respective portions of the Suit Schedule Property many years back and are developing the same at a huge cost. The Counsel also urged that the respondents, who are able to establish that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case in their favour, will be put to irreparable loss and injury if the appeals/applications were to be allowed and that the balance of convenience would also not be in favour 20 of the appellants justifying any order in favour of the appellants.
In the light of these rival pleadings and assertions, this Court will have to consider whether the facts and circumstances available on record establish that the appellants have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience irreparable loss and injury in their favour, and whether the impugned orders call for any interference.
The appellants' claim for interim injunction/measures is grounded in the assertions that Sri.Jeevanappa was the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property; that he had four sons including Rayappa (under whom the appellants claim); that the respondents are wrongly claiming partition of the Suit Schedule Property amongst Sri.Jeevanappa and his brothers; that Sri.Jeevanappa's brothers could not have claimed any right in the Suit Schedule Property as Sri.Jeevanappa was the absolute owner thereof; that the 21 alleged partition amongst Sri.Jeevanappa and his brothers -
given the different dates of partition mentioned in each of the sale deeds executed by the family members of such brothers of Sri.Jeevanappa - is false; and that the sale deeds executed by the family members of the brother of Sri.Jeevanappa (and the subsequent sale deeds concluding with the sale deeds for different portions of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the respondents) are got up documents.
But, the appellants' assertions in this regard relate to the period prior to the year 1962 when first of the Sale Deeds were executed by the family member/s of one of the brothers of Sri.Jeevanappa, and further, the respondents trace their title to the respective portions of the Suit Schedule Property under different sale transactions executed by the family members of the brothers of Sri.Jeevanappa during the years 1962, 1971 and 1974. A 22 précis of the sale transactions claimed by the respondents is as follows:
• The first respondent, who has asserted that she has purchased a portion of the Suit Schedule Property under the sale deed dated 08.11.1991, has relied upon the Sale Deed dated 10.05.1979 executed by Ms.Mary Philomina (the 7th defendant) in favour of her vendor, Sri.Anantharaju and the earlier sale deed dated 29.03.1971 executed by Sri.Lazar S/o. Jogappa (one of the brothers of Sri.Jeevanappa) in favour of Ms.Mary Philomina (the 7th defendant).
• The fourth to sixth respondents, who claim title to the other portion of the Suit Schedule Property under the gift deed dated 14.03.2007 executed by the third respondent in their favour, assert that the third respondent purchased this property under the sale deed dated 19.07.1974 executed by the family members of Sri.Anandaraju (one of the brothers of Sri.Jeevanappa).23
The registered transactions culminating in transfer of tile to certain respective portions in the Suit Schedule Property in favour of these contesting respondents (even assuming that the appellants will be able to establish that these transfers are tenuous and untenable after a prolonged trial) remained unchallenged for over three decades and are being challenged, albeit not in specific terms only in the year 2009. Even the RTC for the year 1975-76 (which is in the immediate vicinity of the sale transactions under which the contesting respondents claim right, title and interest in the Suit Schedule Property), and relied upon by the appellants, indicate that one of the purchasers, Sri.S.Anantharaju was in possession of the Suit Schedule Property even way back in the year 1975-76 though Sri.Jeevanappa was shown as the owner thereof.
Further, though the appellants have asserted that Sri.Jeevanappa was the absolute owner of the Suit 24 Schedule Property and that they are the owners of the Suit Schedule Property as the lineal descendants of Sri.Jeevanappa, that Sri.Jeevanappa's brothers' family members have fraudulently set up a partition in the family, and that Sri.Jeevanappa had four sons, including Rayappa (under whom the appellants claim title to the Suit Schedule Property), the appellants have arrayed neither the brothers of Sri.Jeevanappa nor the other sons of Sri.Jeevanappa, or their legal representatives, in the suit as defendants. The appellants have also not stated how they can claim title to the entire Suit Schedule Property to the exclusion of the other sons of Sri.Jeevanappa or their legal representatives, which ought to have been given their assertion that they claim title to the Suit Schedule Property as successors of Sri.Jeevanappa. Though the appellants have asserted that they are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property, but in praying for injunction against changing the nature of the property and injunction against alienation, the appellants 25 have marginalized their claim that they, and their predecessors-in-title, have been in undisturbed possession in the Suit Schedule Property. These circumstances do not naturally render themselves to a threshold conclusion that the appellants have made out a prime facie case viz., a substantial case for trial in their favour.
The contesting respondents, who claim title to the Suit Schedule Property under registered transactions spread over four decades, and which have remained unchallenged over these decades, have relied upon documents obtained from different authorities like licenses/NOC for development under the Suit Schedule Property including conversion of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural uses under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to substantiate their claim of possession of the respective portions of the Suit Schedule Property. These circumstances also do not persuade a conclusion that appellants have 26 made out balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury in their favour.
The jurisdiction to interfere in an appeal with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in either refusing to grant or granting injunction is limited to the instances when a Trial Court has failed to objectively consider the material on record or when such consideration is not supported by cogent reasons. In this regard a useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Skyline Educational Institutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. S L Vasawani and others, (2010) 2 SCC Page 142 wherein it is reiterated that when a Trial Court upon an objective consideration of the material on record either has exercised or refused to exercise the discretion in granting or refusing injunction, the Appellate Court shall not interfere merely because another view is also possible on a de-novo consideration.27
The Trial Court has considered, amongst others, that the appellants have attempted to challenge the sale deeds executed in the year 1991 and prior only in 2009, that the local authority has accorded separate municipal to the Suit Schedule Property, that the contesting respondents have purchased the property for valuable consideration decades back, and that the appellants have not been diligent in prosecuting or protecting their asserted rights in the Suit Schedule Property; and the consideration of the material on record, though couched in what could be described as staccato sentences, given the amisses discussed, is undoubtedly is objective and supported by cogent reasons.
Thus, in answering the questions formulated for consideration in this appeal, it is concluded that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case viz., a substantial case for trial, or balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury in their favour and that the 28 impugned orders do not call for any interference, and hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed and it is clarified that any observation made by this Court in the course of this order is only for the purposes of considering the merits of the appeals and the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law without in any manner being influenced by the observations made in the course of this order. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA