http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SR. N. N, UMAPATHY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B.V. MUNIYAPPA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard counsel for both the parties.      This 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 :      "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      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.      It is  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.      Under these  circumstances, though  the appellant has s lease, he  cannot be  given  possession  by  the  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.      Under 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.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.