( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against an Order made by the learned Second Additional District Judge at Dharwar, in MA. No. 29 of 1971, by which the temporary injunction granted by the learned Civil judge at Hubli in OS. No. 48 of 1971 was vacated. Hence this petition by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: The suit was filed by the petitioner for a permanent injunction in respect of RS. No. 1/1 of Hirenarti village. In the said suit, IA. I was filed for the grant of a temporary injunction against the respondents. The trial Court allowed the application and issued the temporary injunction prayed for. On appeal by the present respondents, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of injunction. It is necessary to set out a few more facts relative to previous proceedings between the parties.

( 3 ) THE suit land originally belonged to one Krishnaji, whose son is the first respondent herein. The case on behalf of the petitioner is that he was first inducted as a tenant on the land by the said Krishnaji and later he entered into an agreement to purchase the said property for a consideration of Rs,16,000, and paid an advance of Rs. 1,000. Pursuant to the asid agreement his possession was continued in part performance of such agreement. After the death of the said Krishnaji the first respondent inherited the property and took a further advance of Rs. 1,000 in accordance with the earlior agreement to sell. He, therefore continued to be in possession of the property. But, the first respondent filed OS. No. 25 of 1958 in the Court of the Munsiff at Kundgol for a permanent injunction against the petitioner and obtained an Order of temporary injunction therein. Subsequent to the latter Order of injunction he leased the property to respondents 2 and 3. During the pendency of the said suit, the temporary injunction continued to be in operation. But the suit was eventually dismissed on 18-11-1369. It was held therein that the first respondent herein was not in possession of the suit land and that the present petitioner was in possession of i,t on the date of the suit. An appeal was taken up in RA. No. 214 of 1969 before the Civil Judge at Hubli, and it is stated that it was pending on the date of the present suit, An attempt of the first respondent herein to secure a further temporary injunction in the course of the said appeal was unsuccessful. Later, allegedly at the instigation of the present first respondent, respondents 2 and 3 herein instituted OS. No. 90 of 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Hubli for an injunction. In the said suit although an ad interim injunction was issued, in the first instance, it was later vacated on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 were not in possession and 'wahivat' of the suit land. Their appeal against the said Order vacating the temporary injunction in MA. No. 7 of 1970 was also dismissed. The matter was brought up further before this Court in CRP. No. 1559/70. The said CRP was also dismissed. It is after the aforesaid proceedings between the parties that the present suit came to be filed by the petitioner herein for a permanent injunction. The trial Court granted the temporary injunction and the lower appellate Court set aside the same. Hence, this revision by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, it is relevant to give a few more details relative to the earlier proceedings! in OS. No. 25 58, it has been clearly held that the first respondent herein was not in possession of the land on the date of the said suit and that the petitioner has been in lawful possession pursuant to an oral agreement to sell the suit land in his favour. In the next suit, OS. No. 90 of 1969 filed by the respondents 2 and 3, claiming under the first respondent as tenants of the suit land, an order of temporary injunction was sought and the same was refused. On appeal, the said Order was confirmed on the ground that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document