At the time of purchase, a temporary structure was there on the property and with an intention to companystruct a new building, they pulled down the temporary structure.
The 2nd defendant has supported the case of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, he requested to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs.
When the plaintiffs started demolishing the said structure, the Ist defendant appellant herein made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that under the guise of purchasing of a site No.42, the Ist defendant also made an attempt to encroach on the plaintiffs property.
The Ist defendant filed the written statement companytending that he has purchased the property from one Nagaraja who is the 3rd defendant and that the Ist defendant is in possession of site No.42 which is measuring 45 x 60.
The 2nd defendant vendor of the Ist plaintiff has been examined as PW 2 and got marked Ex.
Based on the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing the suit?
Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for judgment and decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the wife and husband.
On behalf of the defendants, the Ist defendant has been examined as DW 1.
P 1 to P 14.
After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
According to them, the 2nd defendant respondent No.3 herein sold the property as power of attorney holder of one Narayana Rao in favour of the Ist plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 7.6.1984.
The 3rd defendant has number filed any written statement.
According to the Ist defendant the 3rd defendant is the owner of the property.
Against the said judgment and decree, the First Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The 2nd plaintiff has been examined as PW 1.
831 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
According to the plaintiffs, the Ist plaintiff purchased site number43 in survey No.37 of Avalahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 45 and North to South 30 and bounded on East by 5th Main Road, on the West by Site No.46, on the North by Site No.42 and on the South by Site No.44.
The factual background needs to be numbered in brief The appeal before the High Court was by the plaintiffs who are respondents in the present appeal.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High companyrt allowing the First Appeal filed by the respondents under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
