the present suit are different. In O.S.No.517 of 2004, the Southern boundary was shown as road and in the present suit the Northern boundary is shown as road. There is no plot of Radhakrishna on the West of the plot where the 2nd respondent is constructing the apartment. The boundary recitals of the neighbouring plot owners also show that the property belongs to this respondent. The property where the apartment is built, is entirely different from plot described in the plaint. Under the guise of interim order, the petitioners are interfering with the work under progress. In O.S.No.517 of 2004, an advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule property and the advocate commissioner after visiting the petition schedule property filed his report. The said report also shows possession of this respondent over the petition schedule property at that point of time and also the identity of plot as per the sale deed of this respondent. The petitioners, having purchased an unidentifiable plot are tying to harass this respondent. The petitioners have filed the suit for declaration of right delivery of possession by removing the structures. The prayer itself shows that there are existing structures and in such case, question of granting injunction restraining the lawful owners from removing constructions does not arise. The vendees of this respondent have obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation for construction of apartments under BA No.2024/2013/G1. The municipal authorities, after verifying the title and possession of the vendees of this respondent, have granted permission to them for construction of apartment. The plan approved by the authorities clearly shows the boundaries of the site where the apartment is to be constructed. There is no prima facie case and balance of
