Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kanakamma vs Sri Gurumurthy Reddy on 9 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A. NO.3723/2021 (CPC)
C/W.
M.F.A. NO.3724/2021 (CPC)
M.F.A. NO.3726/2021 (CPC)
IN M.F.A. NO.3723/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KANAKAMMA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
2. SRI G. RAGHAVENDRA
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
3. SRI G. KIRAN KUMAR
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
4. SRI G. MANJUNATHA REDDY
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
5. SRI R ASHOK REDDY
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
2
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGLAURU-560068.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GURUMURTHY REDDY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
2. SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
3. SMT. PADMAVATHI
AGED 54 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILALGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGLAURU 560068
4. SRI M.B. RODERICKS
AGED 96 YEARS
S/O JOHN ANTHONY RODERICS
RESIDING AT NO.46, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4(a) SRI JASON RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M. B. RODERICKS
4(b) SRI JOHN PAUL RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B.RODERICKS
3
4(c) SRI JAMES RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B. RODERICKS
APPELLANTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.22, WOOD STREET
BENGALURU-560 025.
[DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.10.2022]
5. M/S. DAVRON FARMS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.22
WOOD STREET
BENGALURU-560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI M.B.RODERICKS
6. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD.,
ITS OLD NAME
M/S. THE ALKLALI AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.34
ICI HOUSE CHOWRINGHEE ROAD,
CALCUTTA - 700 071
REP. BY M.D.
7. M/S. ITI ZENECA LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICER AT NO.31
SAROJINI DEVI ROAD
SECUNDERABAD-560003
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
8. M/S. ADVANTA INDIA LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 405
4TH FLOOR 'A' WING
CARLTON TOWERS
BENGALURU-560008
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4
9. M/S. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
UNIPHOS HOUSE, OPP: MADHU PARK
11TH ROAD, KHAR WEST
MUMBAI-400 052
AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
UPL HOUSE 610 B-2
BANDRA EAST OFF WESTERN
EXPRES HIGHWAY
MUMBAI-400 051
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR C/R9)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2021 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO.206/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.3724/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KANAKAMMA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
2. SRI G. RAGHAVENDRA
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
3. SRI G. KIRAN KUMAR
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
4. SRI G. MANJUNATHA REDDY
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
5
5. SRI R. ASHOK REDDY
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILALGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGLAURU-560068. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GURUMURTHY REDDY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
2. SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
3. SMT. PADMAVATHI
AGED 54 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILALGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGLAURU 560068
4. SRI M.B. RODERICKS
AGED 96 YEARS
S/O JOHN ANTHONY RODERICS
RESIDING AT NO.46
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
6
4(a) SRI JASON RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B.RODERICKS
4(b) SRI JOHN PAUL RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B.RODERICKS
4(c) SRI JAMES RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B. RODERICKS
APPELLANTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.22, WOOD STREET
BENGALURU-560 025.
[DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.10.2022]
5. M/S. DAVRON FARMS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.22
WOOD STREET
BENGALURU-560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI M.B.RODERICKS
6. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD.,
ITS OLD NAME
M/S. THE ALKLALI AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.34
ICI HOUSE CHOWRINGHEE ROAD,
CALCUTTA - 700 071
REP. BY M.D.
7. M/S. ITI ZENECA LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICER AT NO.31
SAROJINI DEVI ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-560003
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
7
8. M/S. ADVANTA INDIA LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 405
4TH FLOOR 'A' WING
CARLTON TOWERS
BENGALURU-560008
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
9. M/S. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
UNIPHOS HOUSE, OPP: MADHU PARK
11TH ROAD, KHAR WEST
MUMBAI-400 052
AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
UPL HOUSE 610 B-2
BANDRA EAST OFF WESTERN
EXPRES HIGHWAY
MUMBAI-400 051
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI SURAJ SAMPATH FOR C/R9
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.05.2023)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN
O.S.NO.206/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND
ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.3726/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KANAKAMMA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
8
2. SRI G. RAGHAVENDRA
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
3. SRI G. KIRAN KUMAR
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
4. SRI G. MANJUNATHA REDDY
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY
5. SRI R. ASHOK REDDY
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILALGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGLAURU-560 068.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GURUMURTHY REDDY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
2. SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
3. SMT. PADMAVATHI
AGED 54 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY
9
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILALGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGLAURU-560 068.
4. SRI M.B. RODERICKS
AGED 96 YEARS
S/O JOHN ANTHONY RODERICS
RESIDING AT NO.46
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4(a) SRI JASON RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B.RODERICKS
4(b) SRI JOHN PAUL RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B.RODERICKS
4(c) SRI JAMES RODERICKS
MAJOR BY AGE
S/O LATE M.B. RODERICKS
APPELLANTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.22, WOOD STREET
BENGALURU-560 025.
[DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.10.2022]
5. M/S. DAVRON FARMS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.22
WOOD STREET
BENGALURU-560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI M.B.RODERICKS
10
6. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD.,
ITS OLD NAME
M/S. THE ALKLALI AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.34
ICI HOUSE CHOWRINGHEE ROAD,
CALCUTTA - 700 071
REP. BY MD.
7. M/S. ITI ZENECA LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICER AT NO.31
SAROJINI DEVI ROAD,
SECUNDERABAD-560003
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
8. M/S. ADVANTA INDIA LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 405
4TH FLOOR 'A' WING
CARLTON TOWERS
BENGALURU-560008
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
9. M/S. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
UNIPHOS HOUSE, OPP: MADHU PARK
11TH ROAD, KHAR WEST
MUMBAI-400 052
AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
UPL HOUSE 610 B-2
BANDRA EAST OFF WESTERN
EXPRES HIGHWAY
MUMBAI-400 051
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI SURAJ SAMPATH FOR C/R9
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.05.2023)
11
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2021 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.206/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.06.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the common orders passed
on I.A.Nos.1 to 3. I.A.No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC wherein sought an order of
temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.7 and 9 and
their men from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and I.A.No.2 is filed
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC
seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the
defendant Nos.7 and 9 and their men from alienating, creating
charge or encumbering the suit schedule property and I.A.No.3
is filed by defendant No.9 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with
Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to vacate the exparte
order of temporary injunction which was granted against
defendant Nos.7 and 9. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 are rejected and
I.A.No.3 is allowed in vacating the interim order granted in
favour of the plaintiffs.
2. The very contention of plaintiffs counsel in all the
appeals that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to
the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not made out the prima
facie case and the balance of convenience is not lies in favour of
the plaintiffs and the very approach of the Trial Court is
erroneous. The counsel would vehemently contends that the
suit schedule property is the part and parcel of Sy.No.47 and the
suit was filed to an extent of 6 acres of land and 1 acre 28
guntas of karab land totally measuring 7 acres 28 guntas of land
out of 19 acres 35 guntas situated at Yelenahalli village, Begur
hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. The
counsel further contends that originally the property belongs to
one Chikka Nagireddy and he had two wives by name
Venkatalakshmamma and Thimmakka. Through first wife, Chikka
Nagireddy got two sons and through second wife, he got four
sons and he partitioned the property among them. In the
partition, the first wife and his legal heirs got 13 acres 38 guntas
and second wife and his legal heirs got 2 acres 30 guntas in
terms of the partition dated 23.06.1956. The children belongs to
the first wife are Gurappa Reddy and Ramaiah and they got
divided the property and in the partition, an extent of 6 acres 20
guntas was allotted to the share of Gurappa Reddy and 6 acres
of land was allotted to the share of Ramaiah. It is further
contended that 1 acre 18 guntas was left for the exclusive usage
of Gurumurthy Reddy. Gurappa Reddy sold his extent of 6 acres
20 guntas in favour of Patel Govindappa vide sale deed dated
11.10.1956. The counsel would vehemently contend that
defendants relying upon the sale deed dated 26.11.1956
allegedly executed by Ramaiah who is the son of first wife of
Chikka Nagireddy but no entries are found in the revenue
documents and the names of the defendant also not got mutated
based on the said sale deed but defendants are claiming their
rights based on the said sale deed. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the title is only to the extent of 2 acres
30 guntas in terms of the partition deed dated 23.06.1956 in
favour of Thimakka and her children. Hence, they don't have
title to sell the property to the extent of 8 acres 30 guntas. But
they got divided the property vide partition deed dated
06.01.1969 and also contended that on 21.02.1969, the sale
deed was executed in favour of M B Rodericks i.e., defendant
No.4 to the extent of 11 acres 22 gunas but there was no title to
such extent and the said sale deed also does not disclose
anything about the same since they are not parties to the said
sale deed thus, the question of limitation does not arise. The
relief is sought is also not to alienate the suit schedule property
and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the property of the plaintiffs and Trial Court committed an
error in dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it requires
interference.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents filed the
statement of objections along with the documents and events of
documents contending that the suit was filed after 65 years of
the sale, that is, the sale deed was executed on 26.11.1956 by
Ramaiah himself in favour of second wife of Chikka Nagireddy
and her children. The counsel also vehemently contends that
the plaintiffs are claiming that they are legal representatives of
said Ramaiah but, no document is produced before the Court to
substantiate the same. The counsel also would submits that the
partition was effected in the year 1956 itself i.e., on 23.06.1956
and in terms of the said partition, an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas
was allotted in favour of Thimakka and her four sons and there
was partition between Gurappa Reddy and Ramaiah i.e., children
of first wife of Chikka Nagireddy. There is no dispute to the said
fact that there was a partition on 02.08.1956 between Gurappa
Reddy, Ramaiah and Gurumurthy Reddy. Consequent upon the
said partition only, sale deed was executed on 26.11.1956 to an
extent of 6 acres which was allotted in favour of Ramaiah. The
very Ramaiah had sold the property and the plaintiffs have
suppressed the said sale and filed the suit. The counsel also
contended that the properties were also converted and even
though the property was converted, a false suit was filed stating
that still the suit schedule property is an agricultural land. The
counsel also vehemently contends that when the plaintiffs have
approached the Court without clean hands, an interim order
cannot be granted. The Trial Court also while answering point
No.1 with regard to the prima facie case taken note of the fact
that the sale deed was executed in the year 1956 by Ramaiah to
the extent of 6 acres. The Trial Court also taken note that
several transactions were taken place between the purchasers
who have sold the same on different dates and sale deeds clearly
disclose that already several transactions were taken place
subsequently and also taken note of Encumbrance Certificate
from the year 1953 to 1972 and comes to the conclusion that
the sale deed has been clearly mentioned in the said document.
The partition deed, sale deed, RTC, mutation extracts,
conversion order, tax paid receipts, electricity bills, photographs
along with CD and other documents clearly substantiate the fact
that the suit schedule property is under the possession of
defendant No.9 and hence rejected I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and rightly
allowed I.A.No.3 vacating the interim order which was granted
earlier. Hence, there are no merit in these appeals.
4. In reply to the arguments, the counsel for the
appellants would vehemently contend that the defendants
mainly relies upon the sale deed of November 1956 and the
same at no point of time came into picture and no revenue
entries were made hence, very said sale deed is in dispute. Apart
from that the defendants have filed the suit in O.S.No.44/2017
wherein they have sought for the relief of permanent injunction
to an extent of 10 acres 28 guntas in respect of Sy.No.47/1
which is described as schedule 'C' in the said suit and also the
counsel brought to notice of this Court the document No.16
wherein also sought for the relief of declaration questioning the
sale deed dated 05.08.2016 and sought for grant of permanent
injunction wherein also they described Sy.No.47/1 as 'C'
schedule property to the extent of 10 acres 28 guntas and even
though they claims that there is a sale deed to the extent of 6
acres and in terms of the partition 2 acres 30 guntas and it
comes to 8 acres 30 guntas and sought for declaration to the
extent of 10 acres 28 guntas and also relies upon the sale deed
to an extent of 11 acres 28 guntas. Hence, it is clear that the
defendants also making false claim and this aspect has not been
considered by the Trial Court.
5. Having considered the contention of both the parties,
this Court has to take note of the relief sought in the suit in
O.S.No.206/2020 which is the subject matter in issue between
the parties wherein they claimed an interim order restraining the
defendant Nos.7 and 9 from interference and also from
alienating the suit schedule property. No doubt, in this suit they
sought for declaration that partition deed dated 06.01.1969 is in
respect of non-existent land hence, the sale deeds dated
21.02.1969, 21.01.1976, 16.03.1995, 28.04.2000, 26.03.2007
are null and void and consequently grant an order of permanent
injunction. The suit extent is 6 acres of land and 1 acre 28
guntas of karab land, totally measuring 7 acres 28 guntas of
land out of 19 acres 35 guntas of land. It is the specific
contention of the defendant that there was a partition between
the children of Chikka Nagireddy i.e., among the children of first
wife and second wife and also no dispute that through first wife,
Gurappa Reddy and Ramaiah are the two sons and the suit is
filed by the grandsons of said Ramaiah and wife of Gurumurthy
Reddy. But defendants have relied upon the document of sale
deed dated 26.11.1956 and Encumbrance Certificate also
produced before the Court which discloses that there was a sale
and this is the sale deed of the year 1956 and the document
which have been relied upon by the defendants also clear that
subsequent to the said sale deed, property got changed in the
hands of different persons and also the property was converted
and the other documents are also discloses that different sale
deeds were came into existence between defendant Nos.1 to 9
and present defendant No.9 is in possession of the said land. No
doubt, the dispute is to the extent of 11 acres 22 guntas as
claimed by the defendants but the material discloses that the
sale deed is only to the extent of 8 acres 30 guntas. But the
Court has to take note of the fact that the suit was filed to an
extent of 6 acres which was allotted to Ramaiah in the partition
which took place on 02.08.1956 but subsequently, the same was
sold by the Ramaiah himself. When there is a sale deed, even
though the plaintiffs disputes the same while granting the relief
of temporary injunction, the Court has to take note of the prima
facie case.
6. The Trial Court considering the prima facie case and
also the balance of convenience, answered point Nos.1 to 3
which have been framed based on the averments made in
I.A.Nos.1 to 3 and also taken note that the sale deed is dated
26.11.1956, since the grandfather of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 i.e.,
Ramaiah had sold the extent of 6 acres of land to Thimmakka
i.e., the second wife of Chikka Nagireddy and the relief is sought
in respect of the partition deed of the year 1969. The prima facie
document of sale deed is dated 26.11.1956 which is relied upon
by the defendants to contend that the very Ramaiah had sold
the property to the extent of 6 acres in Sy.No.47. The Trial
Court also taken note of the fact that in the said sale, the
reference was made that there was a partition and in the said
partition, the Ramaiah got the property and also taken note of
the Encumbrance Certificate of the year 1953 to 1972 wherein
the said sale deed is also mentioned. Apart from that the other
documents i.e., partition deed, sale deed, RTC, mutation extract,
conversion order, tax paid receipts, electricity bills, photographs
along with CD also taken note of by the Trial Court and comes to
the conclusion that the suit schedule property is in possession of
defendant No.9 and the property is also converted from the
agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose. Hence, the very
partition deed dated 26.11.1956 is manipulated and based on
the aforesaid sale deeds, they have derived the right in respect
of the suit schedule property is not accepted.
7. Having considered the material on record, the Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not made
out any prima facie case to grant the relief of injunction to
restrain the defendant Nos.7 and 9 from interfering with the
possession of the suit schedule property and also restraining the
defendant Nos.7 and 9 from alienating the same. The Trial Court
while answering point Nos.1 and 2 and also with regard to the
balance of convenience relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court reported in AIR 2010 SCC 296 in the case of KASHI
MTH SAMSATHAN AND ANOTHER vs SRIMAD SUDHINDRA
THIRTHA SWAMY AND ANOTHER and extracted the order of
the Apex Court and based on that judgment, the Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the defendants and not in favour of the plaintiffs and
also while considering I.A.No.3 comes to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs have failed to establish the prima facie case in their
favour hence, rightly comes to the conclusion that they are not
entitled for temporary injunction as sought in I.A.Nos.1 and 2
and allowed I.A.No.3 vacating the temporary injunction granted
earlier in favour of the plaintiffs. While exercising the discretion,
considering the application of temporary injunction, the Trial
Court stated that there must be a prima facie case and the same
is not found in the case on hand. No doubt, the plaintiffs contend
that the extent what the defendant No.9 claims and has
produced the documents are not based on the title and the said
contention cannot be considered while considering the
application for temporary injunction and the same is a matter of
trial and while considering the application filed under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC the Court has to consider prima facie
material on record. On perusal of the material on record it
discloses that though sale deed is of the year 1956 which is
produced by the defendant No.9 is in dispute, the same is also a
matter of trial but that document prima facie discloses that there
was a sale by the said Ramaiah himself that too immediately
after the partition among the family members. Hence, I do not
find any merit in all the appeals to reverse the finding of the
Trial Court and the Trial Court has not committed any error in
exercising its discretion.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
