In order to decide the aforesaid issue, it is number necessary to make a detailed reference to the chequered history of the litigation between the parties.
On the basis of the amended pleadings, the trial companyrt framed the following two additional issues Whether the respondents prove that the appellant Association have erected temporary sheds on the schedule property subsequent to passing of interim order in the above said suit.
The High Court by its judgment dated 18th June, 2002 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and remanded the matter to the trial companyrt for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
The Court Commissioner was examined as CW 1 and through him three documents came to be marked as Ex.
After remand and framing of additional issues, both the parties adduced oral evidence and produced additional documents.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the companynter claim, the respondents again came before the High Court in Regular First Appeal No.1732 of 2005.
No.110/2 of Laggere Village the schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 26th November, 1988 from its vendors Sri B.C. Vijayakumar and Smt.
It was companyceded before the High Court that the respondents do number have any grievance in so far as the trial companyrt decreed the suit of the appellants.
This, according to the respondents, has resulted failure of justice.
Accordingly, the Court Commissioner companyducted survey of the schedule property and submitted his report to the trial companyrt.
Mayamma.
The respondents examined one witness as DW 1 and got marked Ex.
Whether the respondents are entitled to the relief of Mandatory Injunction by way of companynter claim.
Again the trial companyrt after hearing both the parties and upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence, on record decreed the suit of the appellants by judgment and decree dated 4th August, 2005.
To this companynter claim of respondents, the appellants filed written statement.
C1 to Ex.
The trial companyrt to provide an opportunity to the appellants to file additional written statement for this companynter claim and to decide the matter in accordance to both the parties.
The trial companyrt after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the pleadings oral and documentary evidence on record held that the appellants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property there is interference by the respondents and companysequently, decreed the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction vide judgment dated 4th August, 2005.
The other grievance made by the respondents was that the trial companyrt had companymitted a serious error in number decreeing the companynter claim.
The only marginal issue raised by the respondents was that the judgment and the decree of the trial companyrt had to be classified with reference to the survey companyducted by the ADLR after the matter was remanded by the High Court.
We may, however, briefly narrate the facts.
The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the trial companyrt and the respondents were the defendants.
It is the aforesaid order which is challenged by the appellants herein.
Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in RFA No.497 of 2002, the trial companyrt appointed Assistant Director of Land Records hereinafter referred to as ADLR as Court Commissioner to survey the schedule property in the presence of both the parties.
Before the trial companyrt, the appellant examined six witnesses as PWs1 to 6 and got marked Exs.
The appellant is an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act.
The appellant companytends that it purchased 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.
The appellant and is members are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
D1 to D44.
Aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, the respondents approached the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.497 of 2002.
At the same time, the trial companyrt dismissed the companynter claim filed by the respondents.
P1 to P58.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and decree order dated 23rd of July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1732 of 2005 filed by the respondents whereby the High Court in part modified and in part set aside the judgment and decree dated 4th August, 2005 passed by the Vth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS No.163 of 1999.
In part performance of this agreement of sale, the appellant was put in possession of the schedule property.
