AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy
This appeal is filed against the order passed on I A No. III in O S No. 1066/2005 by the 27th Add. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. I A No. III was filed under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the defendant -Commissioner, B B M P.It is the case of the appellant that he has got right and title in respect of the property by virtue of the decree obtained in O S No. 2598/2001 and possession taken by virtue of the execution proceedings initiated in E P No. 2078/2003. II R C proceedings was also initiated in HRC No. 263/2003 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore.
It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant herein that by virtue of the partition deed and also execution proceedings in which possession has been taken from the tenant, he is in possession since from the said date and in order to prove the possession, the plaintiff has produced sufficient materials. Despite the same, the trial court has not considered.
On behalf of the defendant Corporation, it has repudiated the claim made by the plaintiff by submitting that the property bearing No. 37/A and 37/A1 are one and the same. Earlier the said property was leased to one Dhanpal. He had no title. However, he sold the property in favour of Lakshmamma and Kanthamma. Since the property is a public property, proceedings was initiated under Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. Hence the learned counsel for the respondent submits not to interfere in the order passed by the trial court.
I have heard both the parties. The suit is of the year 2005. The claim made by the plaintiff is that on the basis of the partition decree in O S No. 2598/2001, partition deed came to be registered on 7.2.2002 and the property came to the possession of the plaintiff. Earlier one Bhoopal, the tenant was in possession and he was evicted by filing the proceedings and ended in execution proceedings. The said contentions as to whether the property was leased to Dhanpal or whether it belongs to Corporation are to be thrashed at trial.
In view of the rival contentions made by both the parties and also relief sought it is proper to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit itself and to direct the parties to maintain status quo till then. In the result, this appeal is disposed of. The court below is directed to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo till then. The Registry is directed to transmit the LCR forthwith.