K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendants and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1974 of the Addl. Civil judge, Gulbarga in R. A. No. 106 of 1973 affirming the jndgment and decree dated 20-10-1973 of the Munsif, Chittapur in o. S. No. 54 of 1969. ( 2 ) AGRICULTURAL lands bearing Sy. Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and 6 acres 14 guntas respectively of margol village, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, which were originally owned by one Baswantappa, the husband of defendant No. 1, are in possession of the respondent/plaintiff, at any rate from 1955, if not earlier. After the death of Baswantappa sometime in 1957, there have been a number of disputes between defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff concerning the said lands. ( 3 ) ON 25-11-1968 defendant No. 1 instituted O. S. No. 102 of 1968 in the court of the Munsiff, Chittapur, against the plaintiff and four others for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with her alleged possession of the said lands. On an application made by defendant No. 1 the said suit, the learned munsiff on the same day granted an exparte temporary injunction on these terms:"25-11-1968. Admit on Reg. No. 1 and issue summons to defendants for settlement of issues returnable by 29-11-1968. Heard the Advocate, perused the documents and also the affidavits of parties and her witnesses. In the circumstances of the case I pass a conditional order. Issue ad-interim injunction as prayed for subject to the condition that they should not cut and remove the crops until further orders of the Court. The former should also undertake to do so and issue show cause notices to defendants by 29-11-1968. Sd/-Munsiff not unnaturally, this order itself led to a series of (interlocutory orders. Ultimately, on 31-5-1969 defendant No. 1 withdrew the said suit and the same was dismissed as withdrawn (Ex. P. 12 ). ' ( 4 ) WHILE the said suit was pending, the case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. Sd/-Munsiff not unnaturally, this order itself led to a series of (interlocutory orders. Ultimately, on 31-5-1969 defendant No. 1 withdrew the said suit and the same was dismissed as withdrawn (Ex. P. 12 ). ' ( 4 ) WHILE the said suit was pending, the case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 along with defendants 2 and 3 trespassed on the said lands that were in his lawful possession on which he had grown various crc ps, removed the crops, committed various acts of waste and damage on the said lands under the cover of or in defiance of the interim orders made thereto and have rendered themselves liable for damages. On these and other allegations, the plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 54 of 1969 on 17-7-1969 in the court of the Munsiff, chittapur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3000 as damages from defendants 1 to 3 who had committed acts of waste and damage and defendant No. 4 who had stood as surety in O. S. No. 102 of 1968 instituted by defendant No. 1 against him. In this plaint the plaintiff while alluding to the sale in his favour by Baswantappa, his. possession and the various proceedings and in particular to the proceedings in o. S. No. 102 of 1968, alleged that the acts of trespass, waste and damage committed by defendants 1 to 3 to the crops and other properties was of the value of rs 40co and claimed that he was entitled to recover the same from the defendants. However, he restricted his claim in the suit to a sum of Rs. 3000 only. However, he restricted his claim in the suit to a sum of Rs. 3000 only. The particulars of the claim, the factual and the legal basis on which the same is founded is set out by the plaintiff in para 11 of his plaint in these words : from the above facts it is clear that the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the two suit lards as full arid absolute owner and that he had sown and grown the various crops referred to above in the two suit lands and defendant No. 1 without any right whatsoever had filed a false suit on false representations and false documents and obtained an ex-parte injunction order from the Court and got into wrongful possession of the suit lands and thereafter she and her men defendants 2 and 3 removed the various standing crops and other materials by disobeying the Court's order to which they were not legally entitled to and caused other damages to the plaintiff. The removal of standing crops and other materials from the suit land and their acts of burning hut, tamarind tree etc. were all wrongful. Therefore, all the defendants are bound to compensate the plaintiff for the wrongful gain they have made to themselves and wrongful loss and damage they have caused to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 4 is liable to the extent of Rs. 1000 as per his security bond. The details of the crops and other materials removed and damage caused to the plaintiff's property by the defendants and their value are as follows :