AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Sri Kodandarama - Petitioner No. 1 had two sons -Lakshmesha and late K. Lokanath. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Plaintiffs are daughter in law and grand daughter of the 1st Petitioner. Respondents filed O.S.216/08 against the Petitioners seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. I.A.2 was filed along with the suit seeking an order of temporary injunction from disturbing their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Petitioners who are the Defendants in the suit, have filed written statement and statement of objections to I.A. 2. The Trial Court, by an order dated 13/1/09, directed the parties to maintain status-quo of the suit properties till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs filed Misc. appeal in the Court below. The appeal has been allowed and the Petitioners / Defendants have been restrained from interfering with the Plaintiffs'' possession over the suit property, till the disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendants have filed this writ petition.
Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that, the Court below has erred in allowing the appeal and in passing the impugned order without correctly taking into consideration the written statement and objections filed to I.A.2. Learned Counsel submits that, in view of the death of K. Lokenath on 7.2.07, his mother having survived, who died on 4.5.07, the Petitioners also have a right in the suit properties and hence, the order of temporary injunction passed is erroneous and illegal.
Sri V.N. Madhava Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, by taking me through the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.2 and the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, would submit that the Court below is justified in allowing the appeal and in restraining the Defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the Plaintiffs.
I have perused the writ petition papers.
The point for consideration is:
Whether the impugned judgment is illegal?
Indisputedly, a decree for partition was passed in O.S. 1/75 and a compromise petition was filed in FDP 5/96. The Plaintiffs are the widow and child of late K. Lokanath to whose share the suit properties had fallen. K. Lokanath has passed away on 7.7.07 leaving behind the Respondents. According to the Defendants, mother of Lokanath had survived and died after the death of Lokanath. The Petitioners claim that upon death of Lokanath on 7.2.07, the succession opened in favour of his mother also and the Petitioners being husband and son respectively of mother of Lokanath, have also a right in the suit properties.
It is clear from the pleadings that, there is an earlier partition in terms of which, the suit properties were allotted to the share of K. Lokanath. The Plaintiffs being the widow and child of Lokanath, have made out prima facie case, considering which the Trial Court directed maintenance and status-quo. Since is property is an agricultural land, the Plaintiffs being dissatisfied, preferred appeal and the Court below has rightly found that in view of the prima facie case made out by the Plaintiffs, the balance of convenience being in their favour and considering the fact that, the Plaintiffs are widow and minor child and that they would be put to irreparable hardship if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, has rightly allowed the appeal and I.A.2 filed in the suit.
There is neither any irrationality nor illegality in the impugned judgment calling for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and shall stand dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that, the 1st Defendant if a senior citizen and the 2nd Plaintiff is a minor and the suit being one for permanent injunction, the suit is required to be decided expeditiously.
The Plaintiffs shall adduce and complete their side of evidence within 2 months from the date of this order is placed on record of suit. Defendants shall adduce and complete their side of evidence within 2 months from the date the Plaintiffs complete their side of evidence. The Trial Court shall decide the suit as early as practicable and at any event,- within 2 months from the date the trial of the suit is complete.
The Petitioners to place on record of the suit a copy of this order for the information of the Trial Court.
Needless to observe that the findings in the impugned judgment and the observations made herein are limited for consideration of the prayer in I.A.2 and the suit shall be decided by the Trial Court with reference to the record of the suit.