N, Umapathy Vs. B.V. Muniyappa  INSC 342 (25 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
O R D
E R Leave granted.
have heard counsel for both the parties.
appeal by special leave arise 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 :
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 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." In view the above
undisputed factual position, the only question for consideration is 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 High Court on the above facts maintained ad-interim
injunction, pending the suit.
also admitted case that the appellant has mining lease in respect of 1 acre 16 gunthas
of land in he same survey number in which the respondent has bey a lease deed
dated November 29, 1993. The respondent cannot unlawfully
be dispossessed from the lands nor his possession and enjoyment intradicted
except in accordance with the due process of law.
these circumstances, though the appellant has s lease, he cannot be given
possession by the Government except after duly ejecting the respondent a
accordance with law. It would appear that subsequently on a representation made
by the respondent, the Government acknowledged the factum of his possession and
agreed to ratify his continuance in possession subject to his paying Rs. 12 lacs
and odd per acre and further amount as contemplated by the Government order.
these circumstances, the injunction granted by the High Court is in accordance
with law and the respondent is entitled to the protection of his lawful
possession by way of ad-interim injunction.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.