Sri Deepesh Kumar vs Smt Vijaya Ramana and Sri Rajashekar

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally in respect of the appeal preferred by the defendant No. 2 in the trial Court, aggrieved by the I.A. No. 2 filed by the first respondent-plaintiff being allowed and the appellant herein being restrained from interfering with the plaintiff''s suit schedule property.

The submission of the learned Counsel Shri T. Sheshagiri Rao for the appellant is that the appellant''s mother purchased site No. 2 from one Venkataramanappa on 16.6.1999 and following the death of his mother, appellant succeeded to the said property. The very same Venkataramanappa also sold site No. 1 in the very same survey number to one Sanjeev Kumar Mishra on 22.9.2004 and again sold site No. 1 in flavour of present plaintiffs father namely Prasanna Kumar on 24.11.2004 and this itself shows that having sold site No. 1 to Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Venkataramanappa could not have sold very same site in favour of plaintiff''s father Prasanna Kumar. Further submission made is that the boundaries of appellant''s site No. 2 and site No. 1 which was sold by Venkataramanappa in favour of Prasannna Kumar are one and the same. These facts therefore give raise to doubt the very title of the plaintiff and identity of the suit schedule property is also in serious dispute. Such being the case, the trial Court could not have granted order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri Srinivasulu Reddy for respondent No. 1-plaintiff submitted that the aforementioned Venkataramanappa had a large site bearing site No. 1 and he sold to Prasanna Kumar site measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 26 ft. and thereafterwards, very same Venkataramanappa sold site measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 30 ft. in favour of Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and therefore, the question of any dispute regarding identity or title cannot arise.

Having thus heard both sides and in the absence of learned Counsel for the respondents placing any material to show that site bearing No. 1 which Venkataramanappa possessed was of a higher dimension namely East to West 80 ft and North to South 28 ft., The trail Court should have taken all these into account and it is settled law that unless identity of property is clearly indicated, order of injunction cannot be granted in respect of an indefinite site.

For the above reasons, I am of the view that parties can be directed to maintain status-quo as regards suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit itself at the earliest. The observations made herein above, however, shall not have any bearing on the outcome of the case on merits. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit before the end of October 2010.