Court upheld that long delays in asserting property claims weaken the argument for injunctive relief, reaffirming procedural diligence.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court in MA.No.1/2024 confirming the order dated 21.12.2023 in O.S.No.363/2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner - plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the CPC for short) comes to be rejected and affirmed.

2. Heard Shri P.N. Varadaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Dhananjaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri V. Keshavarao Mohithe, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his vendor agreed to sell the entire subject property measuring 2acres 35guntas under Panchayat Parikatha and executed such agreement of sale. Pursuant to the agreement of sale, it transpires that sale deed gets executed on 16.12.1987, wherein the extent of land was mentioned as 1acre 25guntas in place of 2acres 35guntas. Time ticks off, comes the year 2022. After about 39 years, the petitioner then files the subject suit in O.S.No.363/2022, seeking permanent injunction and an application seeking temporary injunction thereon. The concerned Court rejects the application of the petitioner, which is challenged before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirms the order passed by the trial Court.

These orders have driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in possession of 2acres and 12guntas as on today and the defendant in the case at hand is a stranger to the transaction between the vendor and the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that no prejudice would be caused if the possession of the petitioner would be protected.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the defendants are not claiming the extent of land in 2acres 12guntas, but the remaining 23guntas of land the defendants have been in possession in which the plaintiff is wanting to construct a property.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the material available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner pursuant to agreement of sale of 2acres 35guntas, the sale deed is executed only for 1acre and 25guntas and not the entire extent. After 39 years, the plaintiff appears to have realized that the sale deed was for a shorter extent than what the agreement of sale was. The issue was with regard to 23guntas where the plaintiff wanted to construct the property. The 23guntas is said to be in the possession of the defendants, the adjacent property owner. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that even if it is construed to be a mistake, the mistake is now projected after 39 years, without seeking correction of the sale deed. The First Appellate Court also records the same and protects the possession of the defendants qua 23guntas.

8. I do not find any perversity or error in the order that would entail interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . The petition lacking in merit stands rejected Sd/-