The present petitioner as a plaintiff has instituted a

suit against the present respondents arraigning them as

3

defendants Nos.1 to 5, in the Court of the learned Civil

Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Periyapatna

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as <the Trial Court=) in

O.S.No.382/2016, for the relief of permanent injunction,

restraining the defendants from interfering in his alleged

possession of the suit schedule property.

The said suit schedule property is said to be a piece of

immovable property measuring 37 ft.x30 ft. in Sy.No.97 of

Abburu village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, within the

limits of the Trial Court.

2.

According to the plaintiff, the said property was

granted in his favour by the Mandal Panchayat, Panchavalli,

Periyapttana

Taluk,

as

per

the

Government

Order

No.DPC/15/DRH dated 13-05-1972 with respect to which,

subsequently, on 05-06-1989, a Hakku Patra (Certificate of

Right) was also given to him. He further claims that he got

the revenue records in the Grama Panchayat made in his

name and has been paying necessary taxes upon the said

property. However, of-late, the respondents in the guise of

4

allotting some portion of the property in Survey No.97, in

which the petitioner9s property is located, for the purpose of

construction

of

a

community

Hall

by

name

Babu

Jagajeevana Ram Community Building, Periyapatna, are

interfering in his possession of the suit property.

3. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1/2016, under

Order XLIII, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as <the CPC=) in the Trial Court, seeking the

relief of temporary injunction. The defendants No.1 to 3

appeared in the Trial Court and filed their Statement of

Objections to the said I.A.No.1/2016, taking a contention

that, at no point of time, the alleged Mandal Panchayath of

Panchavalli Grama Panchayat had any land in its name or

possession to carve out any Layout with sites in it and to

allot to anyone, much less to the petitioner herein. They

further contended that, the plaintiff, by misusing the name

of the previously existing Mandal Panchayath, has created

certain fake documents in his name and is pretending that

5

the suit property was granted and delivered to him by the

said Mandal Panchayath. Further, defendants No.1 to 3

specifically

stated

that,

there

is

no

order

by

the

Government, conveying or authorising the said Grama

Panchayath or Mandal Panchayath for formation of any

Layout or for allotment of any sites in favour of any one, on

the other hand, the said property bearing Survey No.97 is

being used by the State Government for various other

purposes like building the Travellers9 Bunglow, Office of the

Tahasildar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Stree Shakti

Bhavana and few other Government Departmental offices.

Thus, they contended that the alleged grant and handing

over of the possession of the site by the alleged Mandal

Panchayath, Panchavalli to the petitioner (plaintiff), is

totally a false contention.

4. The Trial Court, after hearing both side, passed a

detailed order in that regard and ultimately rejected the

interlocutory application 3 I.A.No.1/2016 filed by the

plaintiff. Consequently, it vacated the status-quo order

6

granted by it earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff

preferred an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the CPC, in

the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Periyaptna, Mysuru (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as <the first appellate Court=) in Misc.

Appeal No.5/2007, which Court also, by its reasoned order

dated 19-07-2017, dismissed the said appeal with costs and

confirmed the order dated 13-03-2017 passed by the Trial

Court, rejecting the I.A.No.1/2016 filed by the plaintiff.

Challenging the same, the plaintiff in the Trial Court has

filed this petition as a petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument,

reiterated the conte