Guramma vs Basanagouda

B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 33/2008 filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein. The suit is filed for relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 59/2B to an extent of 11 acres-38 guntas situated at Zalalpur Village of Sindagi Taluk in Bijapur District. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree of permanent injunction.

Along with the suit, plaintiff filed an application seeking temporary injunction to protect his possession. The application was resisted by the defendants-petitioners herein. The Trial Court vide its order dated 17.08.2013 allowed the application and granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. This was challenged in appeal before the learned District Judge, Bijapur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20/2013. The said appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2014 confirming the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the orders impugned before this Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and was entitled for protection of his possession. The defence of the defendants that by receiving a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, the plaintiff relinquished his right over the suit property on 10.04.1985, delivered possession of the same to the 1st defendant pursuant whereof, M.E. No. 1470 came to be effected, has not been accepted by the Courts below holding that if there was any such relinquishment, it ought to have been evidenced by a registered document. The Courts below have also found that the mutation entry effected was not preceded by any notice to the plaintiff and therefore, such entry will not enable the defendants to contend that there was a legal presumption regarding the validity of the entries in the revenue records.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants submits that interim order of temporary injunction has been granted during the year 2013 after a lapse of nearly six years from the date of institution of the suit. He further points out that the mutation entry effected has not been challenged before the revenue authorities and therefore, the Courts below were not justified in declining to draw the presumption as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Having carefully considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, I am of the view that there is no apparent illegality or error of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have assigned cogent reasons in support of their conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a prima face case and balance of convenience was in his favour for protection of his possession. There is no perversity or illegality in these findings. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have indeed gone in detail into the merits of the matter can be addressed by making it clear that the observations made by the Courts below in the impugned orders are confined only for grant of temporary injunction and cannot affect the merits of the matter during the course of trial. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.