AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
On hearing the learned counsel for parties, I find that parties are taking prevaricating stances in relation to their rights over suit schedule property and adjoining property. The plaintiffs assert that they are lawful owners in possession and enjoyment of site No.50. The first defendant asserts that she is lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of site No.49, which is situate towards south of site No.50. It is not in dispute that there is a house constructed in Site No.49. There is interse dispute between defendant No.1 and 2. The first defendant asserts that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of site No.49. The second defendant has denied the same.
The learned counsel for defendants/respondents has relied on certain registered documents. The second defendant submits that she is in possession and enjoyment of site No.49. The second defendant disputes plaintiffs ownership and possession of site No.50. There are serious issues to be decided on merits of the case. If the parties are allowed to change the nature of suit schedule property that would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned order is modified. Both parties are directed not to put up any construction/further construction on suit schedule site till disposal of the suit. The learned trial judge shall decide the suit on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order for which both prates shall extend their co-operation.