Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 and 5 in O.S.No.343/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur.

NC: 2024:KHC:45442

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and the parties are coparceners. It is contended that one Sandappa is the propositus of plaintiff and defendants. Deceased Narayanappa, defendant Nos.2, 3 and the plaintiff are children of Sandappa. The plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. There is no division in suit schedule properties between the plaintiff and the defendants. After the death of Sandappa, defendants are managing joint family properties. The defendants have started to act detrimental to the interest of joint family and to the interest of plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded his share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants in order to defraud the legitimate share of the plaintiff, they are trying to NC: 2024:KHC:45442 alienate suit schedule properties in favour of third persons. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the bearing Sy.No.160/4 and defendant No.2 is in cultivation of property bearing Sy.No.160/1. Both the properties come under common plot. On 31.05.2023, defendant No.2 has stored stone pillars to construct fencing around the property in order to disturb road existed in Sy.No.160/1. The plaintiff has no other road to approach his property. Hence, requested the Trial Court to use and occupation of the road which is in existence and also prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.

7. The counsel also produced the photographs before the Court for having demarcation of two plots and also the road and they are not interfering with the usage of the same and not in existence of 8 feet road in between the properties. The counsel would vehemently contend that the order is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:45442

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent also produced the photographs as per the order of this Court. The said photographs clearly discloses that there is a demarcation between two parties and also stone fencing dividing the same. The counsel also produced recent photographs and contend that the appellants have narrowed the said eight feet road and to that effect also produced the photographs. The counsel further contend that the suit is filed for the relief of partition and the Trial Court made an observation that they are coparcenrs hence, the appellant cannot cause any disturbance for usage of said road. The fact that both are having common plot and there is a road to the extent of eight feet and said fact is taken note of the by the Trial Court by seeking photographs and hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the applications.