AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal in M.A. No. 15/2013 is called in question in this writ petition.
The petitioner herein had filed O.S. No. 157/2005 for injunction. The same came to be decreed on 31.10.2006. In the said suit the very property i.e., Sy. No. 6/2 was the subject matter. The southern boundary of Sy. No. 6/2 is shown as Sy. No. 6/1. It is relevant to note here that Sy. No. 6/1 belongs to the respondents herein. The said suit came to be decreed on 31.10.2006, subsequently the respondent herein filed one more suit in O.S. No. 113/2006 in respect of Sy. No. 6/1 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta and the same was decreed on 16.12.2006. The said decree in O.S. No. 113/2006 is confirmed by First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 308/2009. Thus it is clear that insofar as Sy. No. 6/1 is concerned, injunction is operating in favour of respondent No. 1 herein against the petitioner herein.
When the facts stood thus, the present O.S. No. 354/2012 is filed by the petitioner once again for injunction in respect of Sy. No. 6/2. However this time, the petitioner has changed the southern boundary as Sy. No. 7 in stead of Sy. No. 6/1. It is the case of the defendants/respondents herein if the southern boundary is shown as Sy. No. 7 then the property would include Sy. No. 6/1 also.
The first Appellate Court after accepting the contention allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the order of the trial Court granting injunction. It is not open for the petitioner to change the boundary by filing suit subsequently once again.
Be that as it may, since the respondents are the owners of Sy. No. 6/1 and injunction is operating in his favour, the same cannot be disturbed. So also the decree passed in O.S. No. 157/2005 binds the parties. If it is so, the trial Court was not justified in granting injunction against the respondents in respect of the area including the area in Sy. No. 6/1. The trial Court has not verified the facts in that regard in appropriate manner. Accordingly First Appellate Court was justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court.
Hence no interference is called for. Petition fails and stands dismissed. The trial Court shall decide the O.S. No. 354/2012 as expeditiously as possible.