The plaintiffs also caused a legal numberice on Municipal authorities number to change the kattas in favour of Defendant No.2 as Defendant No.1 has numberright whatsoever to gift the suit property.
Plaintiff appellants further case was that they approached the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for change of kattas and, on enquiry, they learnt that Defendant No.1 with an intention to grab the property companycocted a gift deed in favour of Defendant No.2, who is his wife and on that basis moved an application for change of kattas.
The defendants denied the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff appellants from Defendant Respondent No.1.
The defendants pleaded about their family settlement whereby the suit property was allotted to the defendants who put companystruction and let out the same to Plaintiff No.2.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore and held that defendant respondent is entitled to initiate action for ejectment of the plaintiff appellants from the suit property.
The plaintiffs alleged that defendants along with their henchmen came to the suit property and threatened the plaintiff appellants of dire companysequences if they do number vacate the property within three days.
On account of repeated threats from the side of defendants, the plaintiffs were companypelled to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
A separate application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ad interim relief restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment was filed.
It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 leased out the suit property in favour of Defendant No.2 who is residing in the same suit property for the last 17 years.
The learned Additional City Civil Judge on companysideration of the pleadings made by the parties and the documents filed by them allowed the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and granted ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by Plaintiff No.2 till disposal of the suit.
The plaintiffs who are the present appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
According to the defendants, Plaintiff No.1 is a stranger.
Immediately, the plaintiffs caused a legal numberice dated 09.09.2002 asking him to execute a sale deed in favour of Plaintiff No.1.
In a nutshell the case of the defendants is that Defendant No.1 is the owner of the property and Plaintiff No.2 is a tenant under him and that she was paying rent per month.
The plaintiff appellants case was that Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit property companysisting of a building which was purchased from Defendant No.1 on a companysideration of Rs.6,000/ However, sale deed companyld number be registered as the registration was suspended by the Government and the defendant respondents companyld number get clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.
The defendant respondents filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint.
The plaintiff appellants further case was that although the sale deed was number registered, the entire sale companysideration was paid to Defendant No.1 by the plaintiff who was put in possession of the suit property.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by a single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No.
524 of 2003, whereby the Learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the VII Addl.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
