CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Munibathappa vs Somaiah and Another

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 27 June 1988 · Citation: (1988) 3 KarLJ 88

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 115
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. No. 3089/1988
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 355 words

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-This is a plaintiff''s revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. directed against the lower appellate Court''s order setting aside the order of injunction which the trial Court had granted to him temporarily.

2.

The plaintiff brought the suit on the basis of an agreement to sell said to have been executed by defendant-1. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had obtained the said document by fraud and he was the cultivator of the land and that he had an agreement to sell with the 2nd defendant who was then in possession of the suit property. The trial Court relying upon the agreement produced by the plaintiff, granted the temporary injunction. The lower appellate Court has assessed the evidence once again and found that the agreement in favour of the plaintiff appeared to have been got up after the agreement in favour of defendant-2. It has found that there was over-writing by the stamp-vendor apparently in regard to the date of its sale. Added to that, the appellate Court found that the pahani produced in the Court showed the name of the plaintiff just six months prior to the filing of the suit. It surmised that probably the plaintiff got the pahani written up in his name as the cultivator. There was no prima facie evidence placed before the Court as to how the katha came to be changed without notice to the defendant. In that circumstance, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court.

3.

I do not see anything improper. The lower appellate Court on directing itself more correctly to the material placed before it prima facie was of the opinion that the possession was not with the plaintiff on the documents relied upon by him. Ultimately, whether the agreement in favour of the plaintiff was the genuine one or the agreement with the 2nd defendant was genuine would be the matter mainly in issue to be decided on further evidence.

4.

The plaintiff must be content with the suit for specific performance of an agreement and no more.

5.

The petition is misconceived and it is rejected.