2. These two appeals are filed by the defendants
of XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the
which is morefully described in the respective suit. It is their
South Talulk. He acquired the said land through the registered
sale deed dated 15.09.1965 from its owners. It is also their
bearing No.ALN.SR[S]424/1988-1989 dated 06.04.1989. Based
also obtained khatha. The said Appayanna for want of his family
4. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.9430/2007 claims that
Appayanna had sold the property in favour of Smt. Vijayalakshmi
under the jurisdiction of City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli.
Thereafter, Smt. Vijayalakshmi Raghuram got transferred khatha
regularly in respect of the suit property. The said
Smt. Vijayalakshmi Raghuram has also put up constructions
consisting of watchman shed in the said property. Thereafter,
the said Smt. Vijalakshmi Raghuram to meet her legal and
of the schedule property. However, due to establishment of new
name in respect of the suit schedule property. So, the plaintiffs
could not file application for change of khatha into their names.
possession of the suit schedule property. It is also the case of
of the site holder i.e., Sri P. Bhogachar. The said
Sri P. Bhogachar has filed an appeal before the High Court in
Sri P. Bhogachar is one of the purchaser of the site and the said
judgment has become final. It is contended that there is a threat
5. In the other suit in O.S.No.2208/2008 also, same
similar averments are made in both the plaints. The defendants,
or possession in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also their case that
said land and the suit is pending for consideration. Hence,
present suits are not maintainable. It is contended that the
Appeal No.605/1994 is not binding on the defendants.
6. The Trial Court having taken note of the pleadings of
"(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in
possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule property as on the date of suit as
contended?
(2) Do the plaintiffs prove the interference of the
defendants as alleged?
(3) Are the plaintiffs entitled for permanent
injunction as sought?
(4) What order or decree?"
7. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case in
O.S.No.9430/2007, got examined the first plaintiff as P.W.1 and
examined a witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P26. The defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1
and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D25. The plaintiff in
O.S.No.2208/2008 examined himself as P.W.1 and a witness as
P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The
defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.D1 to D23.
8. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion
in both the suits that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property and there was an interference by
the defendants. Hence, granted the relief of permanent
injunction in both the suits answering issue Nos.1 to 3 as
'affirmative'. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, present regular first appeals are filed before this
Court.
9. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for
the appellants in R.F.A.No.598/2013 in O.S.No.9430/2007 is that
measurement of the suit property is 60 x 60. Learned counsel
would vehemently contend that they are in possession and
khatha was not obtained till date. Learned counsel would
vehemently contend that in the written statement specifically
denied the title and also very existence of schedule property.
Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in Ex.P1, no
reference of survey number in the sale deed and no description
of any construction in any of the sale deeds and no reference
whatsoever regarding the existence of building in Exs.P3 and P4.
It is also contended that Ex.P16 is very clear that in Cl.No.7, it is
mentioned as 'vacant land' and in Exs.P17 to P19, there is
description of property. Learned counsel would vehemently
contend that in the revenue records, there is an inconsistency
and no documents of layout plan and order of conversion is
placed before the Court. Learned counsel would vehemently
contend that adverse inference can be drawn and the Trial Court
not considered the admissions given by P.Ws.1 and 2 that Site
No.36 belongs to Sri P. Bhogachar. In paragraph Nos.30 and 31,
no discussion was made, even though no layout plan and Trial
Court has not considered the material on record. Learned
counsel would vehemently contend that the documents which
have been produced are after filing of the suit and no there is no
proper evaluation of the documents and name of the plaintiff
was not found in Ex.D17, particularly in Cl.No.12. It is contended
that measurement is also very odd and possession is not proved
and no sketch is placed before the Court and when there is no
identity and no construction put up, question of demolition does
not arise.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants in
R.F.A.No.599/2013 in O.S.No.2208/2008 would vehemently
contend that there is no proper description of the property. But,
in the sale deed description of the property is shown as 40 x 30,
but schedule is shown as 50 x 30 and the description not tallies
with each other and the Trial Court ought not to have granted
the relief of decree of permanent injunction. Learned counsel
would vehemently contend that when there is a dispute and
cloud on the title, the plaintiffs ought to have sought for the
relief of declaration and suit for injunction simpliciter is not
maintainable. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that
when complicated question of title is involved, the same could be
examined only in a title suit for declaration and consequential
relief's and not in a suit for injunction simpliciter.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his
argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY
L.RS. AND ORS. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033. Learned
counsel referring the judgment would vehemently contend that
very suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. Learned counsel
also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.11, wherein
discussion was made regarding suit for declaration and brought
to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.11.1 to 11.3 in support of
his contention and so also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph No.17 where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and
he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and
possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the
remedy. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court
evidence available on record and admission of P.Ws.1 and 2 and
contend that when possession has not been proved, the question
of granting the relief of permanent injunction does not arise.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in
his arguments would vehemently contend that it is not dispute
that Appayanna was owner of the property to the extent of 3
acres in Sy.No.24 of Konanakunte Village. Learned counsel
would vehemently contend that he had purchased the property
in the year 1965 and obtained conversion order and thereafter
formed layout and executed sale deed in the year 1991-92 itself
and the vendor of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9430/2007 purchased
the property in the year 1992. The plaintiff in other suit in
O.S.No.2208/2008 purchased the property in the year 1991 and
vendor of plaintiffs in O.S.No.9430/2007 sold the properties in
favour of the defendants on 23.11.2007 in terms of Ex.P2. The
documents of Exs.P1 and P2 are the sale deeds, Ex.P3 is Form
No.III, Ex.P4 is the Tax paid receipts. It is also contended that in
the sale deed of the year 1992 specifically mentioned the
schedule describing the same as vendor's property and it is also
not in dispute that later property came within Bommanahalli City
Municipal Council ('Bommanahalli CMC' for short). Ex.P5 is copy
of the decree passed in Regular First Appeal No.605/1994.
Exs.P6 and P7 is the Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.P8 is the Tax
Paid Receipt, Ex.P9 is the Self Assessment Extract, Exs.P10 to
P13 are Acknowledgements, Exs.P14 and P15 are property tax
receipts, Ex.P16 Property Register Extract, Exs.P17 to P22 are
Electricity Bills, Ex.P23 is Demand Register Extract, Ex.P24 is
Receipt, Ex.P25 is copy of order passed in Writ Petition
No.19174/1989 and Ex.P26 is copy of judgment passed in
Regular First Appeal No.605/1994 and defendants have no right.
The written statement is also very clear that the defendants are
interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and
paragraph Nos.7 and 12 discloses claiming of right by the
defendants. Learned counsel would contend that Ex.D5 is very
clear that plaintiff has right over the suit schedule property and
there is no cloud on the title and evidence cannot be beyond the
pleadings.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents would
vehemently contend that even D.W.1 has admitted that he has
not seen the suit property and identity of the property is also
admitted. The counsel would contend that Ex.P26 is clear that
other purchaser Sri P. Bhogachar has succeeded before this
Court by filing an appeal and contend that an application is filed
invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, wherein placed on record the
documents of application filed for impleading in the suit filed by
the appellants herein and the said application was allowed and
written statement was also filed in the said suit. The counsel
would further contend that an application was filed for temporary
injunction and the application was also rejected and ultimately,
suit filed by the appellants was also dismissed. It is contended
that the respondents came to know about the same recently and
hence, they filed an application and all the documents produced
before the Court is clear about existence of the property.
Learned counsel also filed a memo along with other documents
i.e., E-khatha. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that
vendor of the plaintiffs also paid the tax and new numbers are
assigned and in the written statement not stated anything about
the discrepancies. The plaintiffs have proved the possession and
property is also identified by BBMP and possession is also proved
by producing the documents. Learned counsel referring the
material in respect of Regular First Appeal No.599/2013 would
vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to
identity and property was purchased long back on 31.01.1991
from Appayanna, who is none other than the father of the
defendants. It is also contended that plaintiffs entered into
compromise with defendant No.2 under a partition suit which
was filed earlier in the year 1997 and the appeals are also
dismissed.
14. In reply to this argument of learned counsel for the
respondents, learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that he has filed objections to the application filed under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC and there is no pleading with regard to change
of jurisdiction and property number is also changed and
admission was given that they did not know who is in possession
of next property. Learned counsel would vehemently contend
that regarding dimension is concerned in respect of other
schedule, nothing is explained. It is contended that documents
which have been placed before the Court along with application
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are subsequent to the suit and if
the Court comes to the conclusion that documents are
necessary, it could be remanded to the Trial Court invoking
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Learned counsel also brought to notice of
this Court statement of objection filed to the application filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and contend that reasons assigned
in the affidavit are plain and bald as it could be and no cogent
reasons forthcoming to invoke Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The
respondents in the affidavit accompanying the application have
neither stated the date of knowledge of the said documents now
sought to be produced nor have they assigned any reason as to
why they did not choose to produce these documents at an
earliest point in time. Hence, question of invoking Order 41 Rule
27 CPC does not arise. The respondents cannot rely upon the
documents now sought to be produced to prove the existence of
the property and prayed the Court to dismiss the application,
since the respondents have not exercised due diligence
throughout to place on record the documents which are now
sought to be produced before the Court.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants,
learned counsel for the respondents and also considering both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record in both the
suits and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred
supra by learned counsel for the appellants, the points that
would arise for consideration of this Court are:
(1) Whether the respondents have made out
grounds to allow the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the same requires
consideration in these appeals?
(2) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
granting the relief of permanent injunction in
both the suits relying upon the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 in respective suits and whether it
requires interference of this Court?
(3) What order?
Point No.(1)
16. The learned counsel for respondents have filed an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC praying this Court to
place on record the documents which have been not been
produced before the Trial Court. Having perused those
documents, those documents are certified copy of the
impleading application, order dated 08.02.2016, certified copy of
the amended plaint in O.S.No.6286/2007, copy of the written
statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6286/2007,
copy of I.A. filed by the appellants in O.S.No.6286/2007 seeking
police protection, copy of the order dated 06.03.2017, copy of
the relevant order sheet in O.S.No.6286/2007 and copy of the
I.A. filed by the respondent in O.S.No.6286/2007 seeking
temporary injunction restraining the respondents from changing
the nature of suit schedule property. Having produced those
documents before the Court, a detailed affidavit is filed that
those documents are necessary for determining the issue
involved between the parties. The same was objected by the
appellants by filing separate statement of objections contending
that the documents which have been placed before the Court are
only the certified copies of the impleading application, order
sheets and written statement in the suit in O.S.No.6286/2007
and the respondents have not complied with the conditions
referred in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The respondents cannot seek
any advantage of their misdoings and not exercised due
diligence throughout in placing the documents on record. The
Court has to take note of the documents which have been placed
before the Court while invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and also
the grounds urged in the application and statement of objection
and only if those documents are necessary for deciding the issue
involved between the parties, then Court can invoke Order 41
Rule 27 CPC provided the appellants have diligently acted upon.
17. Having perused the documents itself, an impleading
application was filed and order was passed and application was
filed for temporary injunction and order was passed and the
respondents have produced certified copy of the order sheet in
the suit filed for the relief of partition and those documents are
not necessary, in order to decide the issue involved between the
parties. This Court has to only look into the documents which
have been produced keeping in view the relief sought in the suit
whether those documents are necessary to consider the
germane issues involved between the parties. Having perused
those documents, the same are not necessary to decide the
germane issues involved in the case on hand and those
documents also will not twilt the result of the case in the suit for
the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, I do not find any
ground to allow the application to consider the appeals and no
grounds are made out to invoke Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Accordingly, I answer point No.(1) in the 'negative'.
Point No.(2)
18. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents and also considering the
grounds urged in the appeal as well as oral submission of
respective counsel, this Court has to consider both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record since these appeals are
first appeals and statutory appeals and to consider both question
of fact and question of law. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.9430/2007
relies upon oral evidence by examining the first plaintiff as P.W.1
and one witness as P.W.2 and mainly two sale deeds i.e., Exs.P1
and P2 of the vendor of their father and plaintiff sale deed in
O.S.No.2208/2008 respectively and Form No.III and tax paid
receipt as Exs.P3 and P4 and copy of decree passed in Regular
First Appeal No.605/1994 as Ex.P5 in which the High Court
granted the relief in favour of one of the purchaser
Sri P. Bhogachar. The documents at Exs.P6 and P7 evidences the
Encumbrance Certificate issued in favour of the plaintiffs and
plaintiff's vendor, tax paid receipt as Ex.P8, Self Assessment
Extract as Ex.P9, Exs.P10 to P13 are Acknowledgments, Exs.P14
and P15 are Property Tax Receipts, Ex.P16 is Property Register
Extract, Exs.P17 to Ex.P22 are Electricity Bills, Ex.P23 is Demand
Register Extract, Ex.P24 is Receipt, Ex.P25 is copy of the order
passed in W.P.No.19174/1989 and Ex.P26 is the copy of the
judgment passed in Regular First Appeal No.605/1994. The
defendant No.1 also examined himself as D.W.1 and he relied
upon Exs.D1 to D3 i.e., copy of the sale deeds, Ex.D4 RTC
Extracts, Ex.D5 certified copy of plaint in original suit in
O.S.No.6286/2007, Ex.D6 certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.No.6286/2007 and Exs.D7 to D25 are RTC Extracts.
19. In respect of other suit in O.S.No.2208/2008, the
first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one
witness as P.W.2 and relies upon Ex.P1 original sale deed, Ex.P2
Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.P3 Demand Register Extract, Ex.P4
Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.P5 Self Assessment Extract, Ex.P6 Demand
Register Extract, Ex.P7 Receipt, Exs.P8 to P10
Acknowledgements, Exs.P11 to P13 Property Tax Receipts and
Ex.P14 copy of decree passed in Regular First Appeal
No.605/1994. The defendant also examined himself as D.W.1
and relied upon copy of the sale deeds as Exs.D1 and D2, RTC
Extract as Ex.D3, certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.6286/2007 as
Ex.D4 and RTC Extracts as Exs.D5 to D23.
20. This Court would like to consider the evidence
available on record. The witness P.W.1 reiterated the averments
of plaint in his affidavit and he was subjected to cross-
examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that one
Upadyay is his neighbour and he got purchased the property
from his vendor and also verified the mother deed of vendor of
Vijayalakshmi Raghuram and so also sale deed of Appayanna of
the year 1965. It is elicited that he is unable to tell boundaries
mentioned in above sale deed of the year 1965. But, the said
survey number was measuring 3 acres. It is suggested that
Sy.No.24 is not the absolute property of Appayanna as it was
their joint family property and the same was denied. It is
admitted that in the sale deed Ex.P2, there is no mention of the
fact that suit schedule property is carved out of Sy.No.24, but
measurement is 60 x 60 and Khatha No. is shown as No.177/35
and in Ex.P2 western boundary is shown as vendor's property. A
suggestion was made that boundaries shown at Exs.P1 and P2
are not similar and the same was denied. It is suggested that
Sy.No.24 is agricultural land and the same was denied. However,
admits filing of suit in O.S.No.6286/2007 for partition and
suggestion was made that Appayanna had no absolute right and
the same was denied, but admits that the children of Appayanna
had not signed the sale deed. A suggestion was made that he is
not having right, title and interest over the suit schedule
property on the basis of the sale deed and the same was denied.
It is suggested that Exs.P1 to P24 are created and fabricated and
the same was denied.
21. The other witness is P.W.2 and he reiterates the
evidence of P.W.1. He was subjected to cross-examination. In
the cross-examination, he admits that contents of affidavit
evidence is dictated by the plaintiff and categorically admits that
suit site is carved in Sy.No.24.
22. The other witness is D.W.1 and he reiterates in his
evidence the contents of written statement. But, in the cross-
examination, he admits that he has not seen the suit property
and that his father had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.25
and also admits relationship between them. He also admits that
there was conversion of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas on
06.04.1989. But, claims that it was stayed and also admits that
he verified documents which have been produced by the
plaintiff. He admits that Ex.P25 is the Writ Petition
No.19174/1989 which his father had filed and the same was
dismissed on 06.04.1995 and they have not preferred any
appeal. When question was put to him whether his father had
sold the property, answer was elicited that he do not know
whether his father sold site Nos.35 and 36 in favour of
Vijayalakshmi Raghuram under Ex.P2 sale deed dated
18.08.1992.
23. Having considered these admissions, it is very clear
that he did not specifically deny very execution of sale deed by
the father, except stating that he do not know the same and he
categorically admits that suit schedule property was within the
limits of Anjanapura Grama Panchayath and also not denies
mutating the suit schedule property in the name of
Vijayalakshmi Raghuram and she paid taxes to the Panchayath
and also admits the fact that suit schedule property came under
the limits of Bommanahalli CMC in the year 1999 onwards. He
also says he does not know said Vijayalakshmi Raghuram paid
tax and her name is mutated to the suit property. It is
contended that Vijayalakshmi Raghuram had put up shed and
witness volunteers to state that shed belongs to them. But
admits that he had not seen the said shed and also not produced
photos to show existence of the shed. However, he categorically
admits that suit schedule property comes under Ward No.197 of
Vasanthapura and admits that there was a case between him
and Sri P. Bhogachar which is not pertaining to this property.
24. This Court also would like to rely upon the evidence
given in connected suit in O.S.No.2208/2008, wherein also
similar evidence is given by the parties. P.W.1 reiterates the
averments of plaint in the affidavit. In the cross-examination, he
says that there was no agreement of sale between him and
father of the defendants, but claims that said property comes
within Sy.No.24. A suggestion was made that Sy.No.24 was joint
family property of Appayanna and the same was denied and
admits that his vendor had not given khatha of Anjanapura and
payment of tax and he had verified tax paid receipt and order of
conversion before purchasing the site. It is suggested that
Appayanna had purchased Sy.No.24 after alienating his ancestral
property at Attibele and the same was denied. A suggestion was
made that Appayanna had no absolute right and the same was
denied. However, admits that defendants have not signed Ex.P1
and admits regarding filing of suit for partition. A suggestion was
made that documents of Exs.P2 and P14 are fabricated
documents and the same was denied.
25. The other witness P.W.2 and he reiterates the
evidence of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, except eliciting that
there is a partition suit pending between sons and daughters of
Appayanna, nothing is elicited.
26. The defendant, who has been examined as D.W.1
reiterated the averments of written statement in his evidence
and he was also subjected to cross-examination. Similar answer
was given that he has not seen the suit property. He also admits
that his father was owner of Sy.No.24 and also admits that his
father had purchased the property in the year 1965. He also
admits conversion of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in the
year 1989 and similar answers are given in the cross-
examination of D.W.1 as that of answers given in the cross-
examination in the other suit.
27. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, it is not in dispute that Appayanna,
who is father of the defendants had sold the property in favour
of both the plaintiffs. But, the only contention is that it was joint
family property and in order to prove the same, nothing is
placed on record. It is also important to note that, when the sale
was made in the year 1991-92 in favour of the vendor of the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.9430/2007 and when sale was made in the
year 1991 in the other suit, property was transferred in the
name of the plaintiff and plaintiff's vendor long back and tax was
also paid and tax demand was also made, no doubt, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that khatha
was not transferred in favour of the plaintiffs after the property
came within the purview of the BBMP. However, the documents
are very clear that immediately after selling the property in
favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1991-92, khatha was
transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and subsequently, property
came within the jurisdiction of Bommanahalli CMC and also
khatha was transferred and subsequently, khatha was not
transferred. But, the material placed before the Court is very
clear that vendor of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9430/2007 and also
the plaintiff in other suit in O.S.No.2208/2008 were in
possession as soon as the sale deeds were executed and the
same was not questioned by the defendants at any point of time,
except making interference as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the
respective original suits.
28. While considering the suit for injunction, the Court
has to take note of the fact that as on the date of filing of the
suit, whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule
property. Both the plaintiffs have placed on record the sale deed
as well as the tax paid receipt and other documents and also in
the cross-examination, there was a categorical admission that
before formation of sites, property was converted. Learned
counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that no
documents with regard to layout plan and order of conversion.
When there is an admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-
examination in respect of both the suits that there was
conversion to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas out of 3 acres of
land and even there was an categorical admission in both the
suits that he has not seen the suit schedule property, the very
contention that no proper description of the property given by
both the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. The D.W.1 also
categorically admitted that his father was owner of Sy.No.24 of
Konanakunte Village and except this property, he has not owned
any property at Konanakunte Village. When such admission was
given and he categorically admits that father had purchased 3
acres in Sy.No.24 in 1965, the very contention that father was
not absolute owner to sell the property cannot be accepted. The
sale of property by father Appayanna is not disputed. When
such being the case, there is no dispute with regard to title and
contention that there was cloud on the title also cannot be
accepted.
29. The very principles laid down in the judgment relied
upon by learned counsel for the appellants in ANATHULA
SUDHAKAR's case not applies to the facts of the case as there
is no cloud on the title. Admittedly, the property belongs to
father of the plaintiffs and the same was purchased in the year
1965. I have already pointed out that there was conversion of
land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas which is also admitted and the
said conversion order was passed on 06.04.1989 and thereafter
itself, sites were formed and sites were also sold and possession
was delivered long back in the year 1991 and 1992 respectively
and suit was also filed by the respective plaintiffs in the year
2008 itself. Though a suit was filed for the relief of partition, the
same was dismissed for non-prosecution as contended by
learned counsel for the respondents. It is also important to note
that the material on record clearly disclose that the father of the
defendants itself formed the layout and sold the sites and
identity of the property is not in dispute, since description was
given in the respective sale deeds and tax paid receipts also
clearly disclose that immediately after sale of the property,
property was transferred and tax was also paid, which clearly
discloses possession. In a suit for permanent injunction, the
Court has to look into possession and possession has been
established by the plaintiffs and the Trial Court has not
committed any error in granting the relief of permanent
injunction. Hence, I do not find any ground to allow the appeals
by setting the judgment and decree passed in both the suits and
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record has been
considered by the Trial Court and the appellants cannot blow hot
and cold that there was no sale when the father had sold the
property long back. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the
appeals. Accordingly, I answer point No.(2) in the 'negative'.
Point No.(3)
30. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The regular first appeals are dismissed.
(ii) The application filed by the respondents under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
