It was his case that on being delivered vacant possession of the land purchased for one Nijaguneswamigalu he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and after getting licence from the Bangalore City Corporation to companystruct a building he has made the companystruction entirely on his land bearing number41 renumbered as 8/41 , 1st Cross, Hanumant Nagar, Division No.31, Bangalore and number on any portion of the suit land.
On appeal by the plaintiff the High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court holding, inter alia, that on the basis of the written statement, the suit ought to have been decreed without embarking upon a trial para 5/9 and that the first defendant clearly and categorically admitted that he is number claiming any right in the plaintiffs property.
The cause of action for this suit was stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint as follows The cause of action for the suit arose on 20.31981 twenty three eighty one when the first defendant for the first time attempted to dig up a portion of the site by engaging some workmen and subsequently, on other dates when he has companytinued to dig up the portion of the site.
The respondent number1 filed the suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property in any manner.
These appeals filed by the defendant are directed against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court on 19th March, 199 in R.F.A.No.96/1993 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent number1.
The High companyrt placed reliance on the averments in paragraph 6 of the written statement in which it is stated This defendant is number carrying on companystruction in any ones site.
The case of the plaintiff sans details, was that he is the owner in possession of the site bearing No.378 at Sunkenahalli Extension, Bangalore.
The trial Court answered the first issue in the affirmative the second in the negative and the third by holding the second defendant is number a necessary party to the suit.
On 20th of March, 1981 husband of the plaintiff numbericed that the first defendant had been digging up a portion of the plaintiff land to an extent of 20 ft.
Subsequently, taking advantage of the plaintiffs absence the first defendant again dug up a portion of the plaintiffs site and put some sized stones in the excavated portion for laying the foundation for companystruction of a building.
Whether the first defendant has been causing unlawful interference into plaintiffs possession of the suit site?
The High Court further observed that the trial Court has given a finding on issue number1 in favour of the plaintiff and that finding has number been challenged in appeal.
The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint that he defendant had dug up any portion of the plaintiffs land or had made any companystruction on the suit land.
As this defendant does number claim any right in site number578/3 and he has number trespassed into the site, the plaintiff is number entitled to the relief of injunction sought.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
In the circumstances, the High Court took the view that the suit for injunction ought to have been decreed.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues 1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction prayed for?
On the protest raised by the plaintiffs husband the first defendant left the site.
east to west and 3 ft.
numberth to south on the southern side of the plot.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Whether the second defendant is a necessary party?
whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit sit?
The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court.
