(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, in MA No.15/2024 vide Annexure-F in the interest of justice and equity and etc.)

Oral Order

1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 03.12.2025 passed in M.A.No.15/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti, which has granted injunction which has two components.

          (a) The defendant No.2/petitioner is restrained from interfering the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property.

          (b) The defendant No.2/petitioner is restrained from interfering the plaintiff in removing the trees standing in the suit property.

2. The Trial Court has rejected the plaintiffs' application. The plaintiffs had only sought injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering the plaintiffs in removing the standing trees. However, the Appellate Court in M.A No.15/2024 has granted injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which was not the prayer made at all.

3. It is his further submission that the defendant No.2 has not raised the trace and notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners/defendant No.2 application seeking of occupancy right is rejected, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is in possession of the property.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents would contend that the petitioners' application seeking occupancy right is rejected and that has attained finality. The logical inference is that defendant No.2/petitioner has no right over the property and thus, the Appellate Court is justified in granting the order.

5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

6. Admittedly, the defendant No.2 is not claiming ownership over the suit land. Defendant No.2 probably raising a contention that he has raised the trees. If the property does not belong to the defendant, then he cannot be the owner of the trees. Admittedly, his application seeking occupancy right is also rejected.

7. The suit is for bare injunction. The Trial Court is going to consider as to who is in lawful possession of the property as on the date of the suit.

8. Admittedly, the property records stand in the name of the plaintiffs/respondents.

9. Under these circumstances, the application seeking injunction to restrain petitioner from removing the trees is maintainable as the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case relating to title to the land and the trees. There is no dispute that the trees are standing and the land stands in the name of the plaintiffs.

10. However, it is required to be noted that to remove the trees, the plaintiffs may have to obtain necessary permission if required in the law. There is no observation by the Appellate Court as to whether the plaintiffs have taken necessary permissions to remove the trees.

11. Thus, the blanket order could not have been granted. The order should have been passed with the rider that the plaintiffs have to take necessary permissions if required.

12. It is rightly contented by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 that the Appellate Court could not have granted injunction in respect of entire suit property as there was no such prayer made in the application. To that extent, the order of the Appellate Court has to be modified.

13. Hence the following:

ORDER

          i. Writ petition is allowed in part.

          ii. The order restraining the defendants from interfering the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property is set aside as there was no such prayer.

          iii. The defendants are restrained from interfering the plaintiffs in removing the trees standing on the suit property.

          iv. The plaintiffs/respondents may remove the trees subject to obtaining necessary permission for such removal, if required under law.