A plaintiff must prove lawful possession to claim an injunction, and reliance on revenue records alone is insufficient to establish ownership of property.

JUDGMENT :

Prasanna B. Varale, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No. 856 of 2011, wherein the High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), J.M.F.C. and M.A.C.T in Regular Appeal No. 10 of 2009 on10.02.2011, which had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. in OS No. 606 of 1999 on 12.04.2007.

2. For convenience and continuity, parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the original suit.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts are as follows:

3.1 The suit schedule vacant site and A house bearing Khata No. 71 of Chaluvearasinakoppalu village, Pandavapura taluk was in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s father Late Siddegowda till his lifetime, which was allotted to him in a oral partition which took place between Siddegowda and his brothers Kalegowda. However, the khata in respect of the above continued in the name of Kalegowda, brother of plaintiff’s father Siddegowda, who was managing the properties. After the demise of the Siddegowda, the plaintiff allegedly continued with the possession of the scheduled suit property.

3.2 At the instigation of the second defendant, the first defendant began to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site and tried to pluck tender coconuts from the coconut tree raised and reared by the plaintiff on the suit site and tried to disfigure the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff filed a suit OS No. 259/1994 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants.

3.3 It was stated by the plaintiff that the first defendant with the support of the second defendant got the khata of the suit schedule property transferred to his name and the khata was changed as 111 instead of 71. From the written statement filed by the first defendant, the plaintiff became aware about a sale deed dated 03.03.1993 vide which the first defendant purchased the suit property from second defendant.

3.4 The plaintiff averred that the alleged sale in favour of defendant no. 1 is illegal, void, fraud, and conferred no title either on the first defendant or to the second defendant. It was stated that the defendants were never in possession of the suit property and had fraudulently entered their names in the khata extract. The plaintiff submitted that he was the true owner of the property and that the defendant had forcefully taken over possession of the suit property.

3.5 The OS No. 259/1994 filed by the late Original Plaintiff was later withdrawn by him on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties.

3.6 On 15.09.1995, a Panchayat Pallu Patti was executed between the Lakshmamma, wife of Kalegowda and the plaintiff on the basis of which the plaintiff perfected his title over the subject property. Since the defendant tried to interfere with the possession yet again, the plaintiff was constrained to file another suit OS No. 606/1999 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C, Pandapura seeking permanent injunction, cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.03.1993 and recovery of possession. The original Plaintiff, Naganna died subsequent to the institution of the OS No. 606/1999 and thus, his LRs were brought on record.

3.7 The Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. vide judgment dated 12.04.2007 decreed the suit by inter alia cancelling the alleged sale deed dated 03.03.1993 as it was void, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant was thus restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction. The defendants were directed to handover the possession of the suit property within the period of three months.

3.8 Aggrieved by the same, Defendant No. 1 preferred Regular Appeal No. 10/2009 before Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & J.F.M.C., Pandavp