Sri K Manju vs Smt Gowramma on 23 April, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Manju vs Smt Gowramma on 23 April, 2010

Bench: B.S.Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23313 DAY OF APRIL, 2010

BE?' ORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE BS. PATEL _  f  A' 

WRIT PETITION NO. 10253/2010(GM--cPQ..Vvff I
BE EN: __  _ .

SR1.K.MANJ U,

S / O LATE KARIGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

R/O KUDALAKUPPE VILLAGE,

KSHETTIHALLI HOBLI, '_ '  _ _   I 

SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.  *    }   --..._. PETITIONER

[BY SRI.C.R.GOPALASWA1\4Y;'AI§'V.)'*  'A 

AND:

SMT.GOwI<AIviM2&;D 7' . 
w/ O LATE N.MARI';;'A.PPA.   - 
AGED ABOUT'     D 
R/O I<UDALAI:UPPE'»VII;LA_GE, '"
K.S¥IE'I*1'II~IALLE--«.HOBLI., ' ' '

SRIRANOAPATNA  "  RESPONDENT

';_(BY S1§iI';S..N:GI{T_§AEV'IA¢_.RA SM MY, ADV. FOR C /R - RESPONDENT)

*=§=*

A  WIIIEIEEDDON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 5;

 2,27 0F'~'I'H_E CONSIITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
_j;-,_.4AN,NEXURE*;.--J THE I1\/EPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
'*.HQN."{:3LE "CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) SRIRANGAPATNA ON
 ._I.I'&_.N.O.I';.AN APPLICATION U/O 39 RULES 1 8: 2 IN cI>c., IN

__O_.S".NO.*5'O/O8 DATED 16.1.10, & ANNEXURE--K T}:-IE



HQ

IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
[SR.DN.} & JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA IN M.A.NO.3/G9, DATE
6.3.10 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIM.1N--ARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE coom MADE THE FoLLoWI.No_;g~~._v

ORDER

1. The 15' defendant before the Ti'ial"Court is Court. He is aggrieved by the order injunction restraining him interfering C the peaceful possession and?'enjoynierit_~ofi'-the suit schedule property of the plaintiff as by..:Ctl'ie':}_Xppellate Court in M.A.No.3/O9 eideerder dated eegee :2o.f1o by the learned Principal Civil *iSr. llSrira:lgapatna.

2. TheCs_uit4l_inv is filed by the respondent herein praying.forVVl:p.eVr1~Iianent injunction to restrain the ,1"defend'al1t§..f:f1'orI1dint'erfering with her peacefui possession the suit schedule property. The suit C if is 8 guntas of land comprising in Survey situated at Kudalakuppa, Srirangapatna Taluk. the plaint, the plaintiff filed the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 contending inter alia that the defendants were interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and hence they mayﬁbe restrained from doing so during the pendency of A'

3. The Trial Court, on consideration of f record, has found that the plaintiff has facie case regarding her actual p_ossess_ion ofathe and that the defendants failed totpdriina festabalish the defence taken by thern'-.s'Lati'ng suit schedule property belonged». to fwhereirrithey" had put up a cane crushirig-/Apifessing unit.

4. In order, the Trial Court has recorded a pvrirriav that the assertion made by ,_~'th¢, Vthatltfddthe---«'said 8 guntas of suit schedule property rgianted to her husband by the Government wand dﬁaguvaiiiiidﬁhit was also issued based on which the ....f'_;':..4.reV.enue records were entered in the name of the grantee 'I ' x " probabalised by the documents produced. To support. this prima facie finding, the Trial Court has referred to RTC pertaining to Survey No.7/ 2 standing in the name of the plaintiff for the year 200'7»~O8. The Trial Court hassaiso found that plaintiffs name was got .

M.R.No.13/85~86. It is in this background."th"aif*'V/die "

Court has persuaded itself to grant"-..an;'_'orderof injunction recording a specific'lfir1*ding that thel..p1'a_i'n-tiff~jhas = i' made out a prima facie case apn.d:'i:ialance.'of-icoriiitenience was in her favour and if granted, it would result in 'V to her. T his ﬁnding of appeal by the API3ei1ate'.:C0U

5. Perunsall of the Appellate Court also discloses _that'"'th_e Appellate Court has re--appreciated the 'V1n'atte1-ir..ﬁ'nd-eV.has concurred with the prima facie findings as rec_o:n:i_eeVdtA - Court.

6. lIThoug;h;_":1--earned counsel for the petitioner contends .'petitioner has been using a portion of the suit schedule property as a passage to reach his property and therefore atleast this right of the defendant may be preserved tiil the disposal of the suit, I do not material in this regard produced before the _ any specific defence taken in the written state1nei;t."'(§n. _th.eu "~ if 1-' other hand, in the written statement is totally denial and the defendants. have 'set title and possession in the suitV__sVeh.edVuv1e property; Hence, there is no substance in tI*1iVspcontention,.f ..

7. There is no- valid» grourldpp a"vinteeI'fere with the impugned ' orC1er:."jfI'he'f1\;;s2*rit' petition' 'is' therefore dismissed. Sd/-4 IUEGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court