D.P.WADHWA, K.RAMASWAMY
N. Umapathy – Appellant
Versus
B. V. Muniyappa – Respondent
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made on 28.8.1996 in C.R.P. No. 2780/95. The admitted position is that the predecessor of the respondent had a mining lease in S.No. 14 of Venkatapura Village. The High Court has noted as under :
"Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff (respondent herein) having purchased the machinery plant installed over the said extent of the suit land from his vendor, had been in continuous actual possession thereof since November, 1989. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff s vendor was in possession and enjoyment of suit property from 1984 till November, 1989 on which date he delivered possession to the plaintiff under the said agreement. Admittedly, the Government is the true owner of the suit property."
3. In view of the above undisputed factual position, the only question for consideration is: whether the respondent is entitled to ad-interim injunction pending suit under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, though the trial Court had not granted the injunction and the appellate Court reversed it? The Hig
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.